Culling mutated hatchlings:

Don't freeze snakes!!! Anyone who thinks that is a good idea is silly.

I have not encountered this situation, as I do not breed. But my book "The complete ball python" says that you can freeze in these situations or take to a vet for euthanasia. You could always talk to your vet and see what their opinion is. They have a good knowledge of the nervous system of the snake and how it will be affected by either method. I would think that there being cold-blooded would affect how it feels to them differently than it would to a person.

Vader, I understand where you are coming from. I realize that your intentions are nothing less than noble and that in your opinion you are keeping the best interests of the snake in mind. However, I do see several problems with your theory

1. It is illegal whether or not the animal is likely to live or not

2. If someone who is not knowegable in snakes stumbles upon it, they are going to freak out. (Before I knew what a ball python was, I would probably would have been convinced it was a baby monster snake like I had seen on T.V.! LOL The reality is that MANY people have a deep-rooted phobia of snakes and to encounter any snake in the wild, especially one that is not native, will set of a reaction of extreme fear and then "How can we stop this from happening again?".

3. There is no guarantee the animal would not survive. You just never know, what appears to you to be a life-threatening defect may still allow the animal to survive for a while. If it encounters the right environmental factors (unlikely, but could happen), and no predators stumble upon it, it could survive. It might be better if you feel it would rather explore for a while, to put it in a clean safe cage and just allow it to live out it's days in the security of your home. You could allow it to die naturally, and yet with the dignity of being warm, safe and as comfortable as is possible.

4. Any hatchling found in the wild, whether it is the warm Everglades, or the frozen tundra land of the north, would be said by our opponents to be evidence of a wild breeding population. Like I said, no matter how unlikely the environment is to produce a breeding population, a hatclhing would be fuel for the fire... There is no room for error on our part right now, or ever. We must practice our hobby with the utmost responsibility and care, now and forever.

Anyways, interesting thread folks!

I have read that since they are cold blooded and they burmate. Their blood can start to crystallize(sp) before they die.

If that is true, that would be the furthest thing from humane there could be.

The only approved method is administration of an overdose of sedative by a veterinarian. The animal must still experience the stress of the trip there, and the needle stick, when this done--but then it will be sedated, and will pass without further pain, even though it may take a while.
The only approved method is not necessarily the most humane method, however, as I pointed out. Instant destruction of the brain is a terrible thing to have to do, but it's free of pain, it's instant, and there is no question about how long the animal may have suffered. This is the same method most owners of small numbers of snakes use to put down rats in order to feed them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmastaff

I have not encountered this situation, as I do not breed. But my book "The complete ball python" says that you can freeze in these situations or take to a vet for euthanasia. You could always talk to your vet and see what their opinion is. They have a good knowledge of the nervous system of the snake and how it will be affected by either method. I would think that there being cold-blooded would affect how it feels to them differently than it would to a person.

Vader, I understand where you are coming from. I realize that your intentions are nothing less than noble and that in your opinion you are keeping the best interests of the snake in mind. However, I do see several problems with your theory

1. It is illegal whether or not the animal is likely to live or not

2. If someone who is not knowegable in snakes stumbles upon it, they are going to freak out. (Before I knew what a ball python was, I would probably would have been convinced it was a baby monster snake like I had seen on T.V.! LOL The reality is that MANY people have a deep-rooted phobia of snakes and to encounter any snake in the wild, especially one that is not native, will set of a reaction of extreme fear and then "How can we stop this from happening again?".

3. There is no guarantee the animal would not survive. You just never know, what appears to you to be a life-threatening defect may still allow the animal to survive for a while. If it encounters the right environmental factors (unlikely, but could happen), and no predators stumble upon it, it could survive. It might be better if you feel it would rather explore for a while, to put it in a clean safe cage and just allow it to live out it's days in the security of your home. You could allow it to die naturally, and yet with the dignity of being warm, safe and as comfortable as is possible.

4. Any hatchling found in the wild, whether it is the warm Everglades, or the frozen tundra land of the north, would be said by our opponents to be evidence of a wild breeding population. Like I said, no matter how unlikely the environment is to produce a breeding population, a hatclhing would be fuel for the fire... There is no room for error on our part right now, or ever. We must practice our hobby with the utmost responsibility and care, now and forever.

Anyways, interesting thread folks!

---

I have that same book. The Complete Ball Python (A Comprehensive Guide to Care, Breeding, and Genetic Mutations) by Kevin McCurley Page 112 says regarding snakes with severe deformities that disable the nake and cause it to fail to function:: "A humane way to deal with these snakes is to freeze them or have a veterinarian euthanize them."

Interesting thread.:)

So a book states its humane to put a live python into a freezer?

I would burn the book... but thats just me

Reptiles
Preferred methods
Barbiturates

Sodium pentobarbital (60-100 mg/kg) can be administered intravenously or intraperitoneally.
Inhalant agents

Use of inhalant agents for euthanasia is acceptable for lizards and snakes, but not recommended for chelonians (turtles) as many of these species can hold their breath for extended periods. A physical method of euthanasia must be used after apparent clinical death to ensure that death has in fact occurred
Conditionally acceptable methods
Physical methods

Decapitation alone is not considered an acceptable means of euthanasia in reptiles because of the high tolerance of nervous tissue to hypoxia. Double pithing, or decapitation followed by double pithing, is required to ensure brain death. Ideally these methods should follow anesthesia, but stunning prior to decapitation or pithing is acceptable when the operator is well-trained and when scientific justification is provided. Pithing may not be performed on conscious animals.
Carbon dioxide

Like inhalant agents, carbon dioxide may be used in lizards and snakes but not cheloneans. Loss of consciousness usually develops rapidly, but exposure times required for euthanasia are prolonged. Exposure must be followed by a physical method of euthanasia.
Adjunctive methods

Perfusion with fixative may be used to bring about death in anesthetized animals when scientifically justified.

Cooling may be used to decrease activity in animals prior to euthanasia, but the temperature must be no lower than that normally experienced by the species. Freezing a conscious animal is not permissible, except when small animals are flash frozen in liquid nitrogen.

Wow, I've never seen some much discussion on the subject before. I guess no one here has grown up on a farm? You cannot discuss humane/inhumane when dealing with putting down animals. They are not human. Ever wonder how chikcens are killed? Do you think the cattlemen spend big money on chemicals to kill their stock?

Chickens have their necks rung, by machine or by people. It's been awhile since I've had family in the cattle business, but they used to electrocute the cattle by hainvg them standing on a metal floor, then someone walks around with this metal prod which is electified. Usually it kills them on the spot, but not always. Chickens can live for minutes after their neck is rung, so many of the shops today snap the necks, then slice the neck, trying to cut through the neck but not always. Ever seen pigs slaughtered. Interesting.

Please don't get caught up on humane/inhumane. Do it to the best of your ability and get over it. Only kill what you have to kill.

I love all of my animals, but I have no problem putting them down if that's what needs to be done.

Ever take a 22 out to the shed to kill Ole Yeller?

Jim Smith

Hi,

Pithing.

I have to say, having watched a ball python sit with its head underwater for over 25 minutes, I'm not overly convinced by the "Inhalant agents" method either.

Where did you get that from by the way?

The british small animal vetinary association manual of reptiles has this as its entry;

Quote:

---

....................

Intravenous barbiturates are the method of choice. This technique is quick, resulting in death within a couple of minutes..................

Intraperitoneal or intramuscular injection of barbiturate is effective but very slow - several hours ( Lawton, unpublished data ). Intraperitoneal injection should not be used if a post mortem examination is planned. Intracardial injection can be used in squamata but the lizard or snake should ideally be sedated or even anaesthetised prior to this technique.

Inhalation of volatile agents within an anaesthetic chamber is useful for terrestrial species and, especially, for poisonous snakes. The concentration of volatile agent must be high enough and the exposure to the agent long enough to ensure the death of the reptile. Care must also be taken to avoid contct of the reptile with the volatile fluid. Euthanasia of aquatic species should never be attempted this way, as they are able to revert to anaerobic respiration, the length of time needed to achieve euthenasia makes this method impracticable.

Injection of volatile agent directly into the lung space has been used as a method of euthanasia, although this should only be done in anaesthatised reptiles (Cooper et al, 1989 ).

...............

In an emergency the head of the reptile can be struck with such force as to destroy the brain (Cooper et al, 1989 ).

Decapitation should not be used as the sole method of euthanasia, unless the brain is destroyed by pithing immediately afterwards (Cooper et al , 1989 ). The assumption that decapitation results in unconciousness followed by rapid deterioration of the nervous system is disputed: the brain remains viable for up to an hour after decapitation (Cooper et al, 1984 ).

Hypothermia has been claimed as both a suitable and humane method for euthenasia of small reptiles (Frye, 1984a ), although this is strongly contested. Whilst hypothermia makes reptiles torpid and may facilitate handling, freezing is considered painful due to the formation of ice crystals on the skin and in the tissues (Cooper et al, 1989 ). The exception to this is dropping small reptiles directly into liquid nitrogen; this is considered to cause instantaneous death (Hillman, 1978 ).

---

I skipped the non relevant parts but that still made my fingers twinge. :oops:

It's also probably out of date but it's the only one I have handy right now.


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoolioTiffany

For those who smash the head of the snake, how do you even stand to do so? I know I could never do this, and since I'm going to breed, I'd rather spend money to get the snake humanely euthanized rather than witness the horror of smashing a baby snake's head. I respect and love snakes way to much to do anything horrible to them.. Like smashing the head, freezing, cutting off the head, C02, etc.

---

But see, it's not a matter of smashing and killing but caring enough to put it out of its misery, a vet may not know how to euthanize reptiles properly and it may suffer more. I've seen breeders take videos of deformed babies where they poke and prod it as the creature writhes in pain because it's spine is deformed, I felt so sickened...I could have killed it myself just to put it out of its misery. Maybe I'd be upset and cry after doing so but I'd know that it wasn't going to live in an unfulfilled life.

And Vader6, take YOUR own advice and stop trying to win a petty argument. And then AFTER saying you're done with the thread you come BACK to show yourself as a n00b even more! n00b's are rude idiots by the way, at least you know you're one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vader6

Didn't know ppl were going to get all uppity about it, I mean damn. OUR hobby has nothing to do with BP's or them entering or not entering the wild. And I feel if the snake is gonna die and u wanna let it outside and roam for a day and then it die and be eaten by something. DO IT. Now if you wanna just release it cuz it's not eating, u don't like it, or anything that is not gonna have it die VERY soon then yea don't do it. THAT is my pt. Idc if ppl agree with it or not, or if it's illegal or not. That is the only circumstance I think it is right to do it. Cuz i personally think the snake would be happier exploring. Your responsibility as a handler is to make your snakes happy and I think if it's gonna die soon then that is what will make it happy. So keep neg repping me cuz that's what I think.

---

:colbert: :mad:NO. DON'T DO IT.
Purposefully disobeying the laws related to letting go non native species has been the part of the reason for the government trying to take away our rights to have them. That is just as bad as knowing you have a hungry Burmese Python that noses open his crap aquarium and gets out. So then you put him in a bag in his crap aquarium and decide this will solve the problem, only to wake up to a hungry Burmese python who strangles a child. Exactly what happened to that poor little girl in Florida. Someone made a series of really bad decisions, not the least of which was to try to keep an animal he could neither house, nor feed properly. This sort of thinking in a keeper is dangerous to all of us who are caring and responsible keepers and the fact that you defend it is reprehensible.

Of course you can discuss what is humane when it comes to slaughtering animals. Animals are not somehow so wildly different from people that their perception of the world isn't something we can fathom. The more we learn about them, the more we realize that they're a lot more like us than we were ever comfortable with.
You can humanely kill a chicken by cutting its head off, because a chicken is a warm-blooded animal, and it will feel little to no pain, and lose consciousness almost immediately.
You can't humanely kill a reptile that way, because their brain will survive for a long time once it's been separated from the body.

As for the McCurley book, as I pointed out, most keepers DID NOT KNOW. Many still don't. Until recently, veterinary texts recommended freezing for reptile euthanasia. It took further study to reveal that the animals were MOST LIKELY conscious and able to feel the pain of ice crystals forming in their body.

The fact that people want to discuss this issue means people care whether or not these animals are suffering or experiencing pain.

I don't think that the snakes with serious spinal deformities are necessarily in pain when they're being poked--any snake will move when poked, and the writhing is probably just the snake's attempt to move away when the person prods it. There's no reason to believe it is in pain, there. I don't think the person showing off the hatchling is being cruel. It's obvious that the snake would not survive, but in many cases of deformity, the snake isn't necessarily in any pain when it hatches out--it's just confused because its body won't do what its trying to make it do. The snake's inability to eat or grow or move properly means it cannot survive, so euthanasia will spare it the pain of starvation/dehydration--but it might not be suffering immediately upon hatching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

Wow, I've never seen some much discussion on the subject before. I guess no one here has grown up on a farm? You cannot discuss humane/inhumane when dealing with putting down animals. They are not human. Ever wonder how chikcens are killed? Do you think the cattlemen spend big money on chemicals to kill their stock?

Chickens have their necks rung, by machine or by people. It's been awhile since I've had family in the cattle business, but they used to electrocute the cattle by hainvg them standing on a metal floor, then someone walks around with this metal prod which is electified. Usually it kills them on the spot, but not always. Chickens can live for minutes after their neck is rung, so many of the shops today snap the necks, then slice the neck, trying to cut through the neck but not always. Ever seen pigs slaughtered. Interesting.

Please don't get caught up on humane/inhumane. Do it to the best of your ability and get over it. Only kill what you have to kill.

I love all of my animals, but I have no problem putting them down if that's what needs to be done.

Ever take a 22 out to the shed to kill Ole Yeller?

Jim Smith

---

Ringing a chickens neck isnt the same as slowly dieing painfully in a freezer. If you have to kill something it should be done quickly and with as least pain as possible.

I was equating all of this to humane/inhumane. These are animals. They all die. Either by our hands, by the actions of some of our pets/business associates (if you're a breeder), or any number of possibilities. If an animal has to be killed, for any reason, it has to die. Don't equate this killing with human sufferage. It's an animal that has to die. Just like the chicken, beef cattle, pig, lamb or any number of fish we as humans kill all of the time. Sure, you can put varying degrees on the killing of these animals. You can take your pet to a vet and have him inject the pet with chemicals to kill it. You can chop an animal's head from it's body with an axe. You can kill your animals however you like. But in my opinion don't try to humanize this act.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't put a human face on an animal that has to die.

Just one man's opinion.
Jim Smith

I think perhaps you aren't quite sure of the meaning of the term 'humane'. I can't imagine where all of this stuff about putting 'human faces' on animals comes from. Don't depersonalize animals because they have to die, either. They are still thinking, feeling beings. They have a great deal of awareness, and they deserve respect. It's possible to respect an animal, to be aware of its emotional life, it's intelligence, and its sensory input, without 'humanizing' it. Humans are just animals too, you know. Just one more kind of animal, no different from any other in any way but degree and arrangement of parts. We have not one single thing about us that is truly unique--just extremes of already existing traits found in other species. We aren't special, we're just vain.

We put ourselves first because all species put themselves first. That's not wrong. We eat other animals because we are omnivores--that's what we evolved to be. If we have to kill another animal, we have the capability to decide whether we want to cause excessive pain, or do it quickly and painlessly. We have the capacity for empathy, something we share with only a few other species. We can decide if it is appropriate to apply that empathy to the animals we raise. I personally believe that it is appropriate, so I do my best to avoid causing undo pain, stress, or unhappiness to animals in my care. If I have to kill something, I do it quickly and cleanly, with their ability to perceive pain FAR more in mind than my own emotions about having to engage in the act. I feel that it is more important to be humane than for me to avoid doing something difficult.

I also believe that engaging in unnecessary cruelty is a sign of mental illness in humans. Lack of empathy is one of the primary symptoms of sociopathy. So being aware of the feelings of animals in your care is an important part of being a healthy human.

It doesn't mean you don't kill them, or that you weep in your cheerios over it--it means you respect them and minimize their suffering, because you would want someone to do the same for you, if you were in their place. It is the right thing to do. Oh, and it's also illegal to engage in cruelty to animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

I think perhaps you aren't quite sure of the meaning of the term 'humane'. I can't imagine where all of this stuff about putting 'human faces' on animals comes from. Don't depersonalize animals because they have to die, either. They are still thinking, feeling beings. They have a great deal of awareness, and they deserve respect. It's possible to respect an animal, to be aware of its emotional life, it's intelligence, and its sensory input, without 'humanizing' it. Humans are just animals too, you know. Just one more kind of animal, no different from any other in any way but degree and arrangement of parts. We have not one single thing about us that is truly unique--just extremes of already existing traits found in other species. We aren't special, we're just vain.

We put ourselves first because all species put themselves first. That's not wrong. We eat other animals because we are omnivores--that's what we evolved to be. If we have to kill another animal, we have the capability to decide whether we want to cause excessive pain, or do it quickly and painlessly. We have the capacity for empathy, something we share with only a few other species. We can decide if it is appropriate to apply that empathy to the animals we raise. I personally believe that it is appropriate, so I do my best to avoid causing undo pain, stress, or unhappiness to animals in my care. If I have to kill something, I do it quickly and cleanly, with their ability to perceive pain FAR more in mind than my own emotions about having to engage in the act. I feel that it is more important to be humane than for me to avoid doing something difficult.

I also believe that engaging in unnecessary cruelty is a sign of mental illness in humans. Lack of empathy is one of the primary symptoms of sociopathy. So being aware of the feelings of animals in your care is an important part of being a healthy human.

It doesn't mean you don't kill them, or that you weep in your cheerios over it--it means you respect them and minimize their suffering, because you would want someone to do the same for you, if you were in their place. It is the right thing to do. Oh, and it's also illegal to engage in cruelty to animals.

---

Okay, now I've got a problem here. It seems to me that you're okay with how an animal is killed as long as you don't have to do it. Do you eat meats, any meats? If you do, then you are partaking in the slaying of many different animals. Do you think that when a fish is gutted alive, this is humane, but I bet you eat fish? When a mullisk is pried open while still alive, is this humane? Do you think that zapping thousands of cattle a day with high levels of electiricity is humane, but I bet you eat meat? Do you think any business that slaughters animals as part of their process, kill their stock in the fashion you mention above?

Putting a "human face" on something is different than putting "human faces" on an animal. I'll let you look up what a metaphor is for this one.

Animals aren't people, so I can't depersonalize them. Yes, they are animals, so are the rats, mice, rabbits and piglets used in our hobby/businesses. So is the food you put in your mouth everyday. Do you worry about how that pork chop died you're going to have for dinner tonight? I am fully aware these are animals, every juicey, succulent bite I take of my porterhouse steak, I am aware I am eating a gloriously delicious animal. You may not be special, but my Mommy always told me I was special, you can be the vain one in this discussion. But honestly, do you really put this much thought into the killing of a snake, a rat, a mouse, whatever? You must not sleep at night very often.

You are correct, I do put myself first above and beyond any other animal on this planet. I run over that squirrel that for some reason won't get out of the road instead of swerving to avoid it and hitting another car or damaging my car in a number of ways. I put myself first every November when I put that deer in the sights of my rifle and pull the trigger.

You can empathize with the plight of an animal ready to die, but it's going to die. Taking care of your animals is not what we're discussing here. We were talking about the means of killing an animal that the owner decided must die, for whatever reason (doesn't matter). I was saying that we can't put the values of humans on an animal's life. This is where the human face metaphor come in. This is where humane/inhumane also comes into the discussion. See?

Again, you mention animals in your care, well I'm not. I'm talking about you saying animals need to be considered when they must die. For that matter, how many humans really care about the other humans? I won't take this any further here.

You talk about unnecessary cruelty. To whom are you talking about? The farmer in Kansas or the New York city dwelller? Are you talking about the Native Americans or the Jewish community? Are you talking about an NRA member or a PETA member? You can't put a stamp on this of your own design. That's called egotistical. See I too know some $9 college words.

Cruelty to animals is not what we're talking about here. Never in my discussions did I ever say, nor imply that you have to be cruel, but I guess it all depends on your definition of cruel. Are you of Kansas design or are you more of the New York city design. That's for you to ask yourself.

NRA or PETA? You decide.

We're probably done discussing this, since we have differing values. You have your views, and I have mine. You are entitled to your views as I am mine. I'm content with with that.

Jim Smith

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

Okay, now I've got a problem here. It seems to me that you're okay with how an animal is killed as long as you don't have to do it. Do you eat meats, any meats?

---

It appears to me that you didn't actually read my entire post. Go back and re-read it, and tell me if you still need to ask whether or not I'm ok with killing animals myself.

My point is that lack of respect for the feelings of others--lack of empathy--is a sign of psychological disfunction in humans. Deliberately divorcing oneself from the facts (that other animals are thinking, feeling beings) is self-deception. I have neither of the above mental problems. I don't require them in order to humanely kill animals when it needs to be done.

It is possible to acknowledge the feelings of the animal you need to kill/euthanize, and strive to do so with a minimum of pain, distress, and suffering, because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. And yes, failing to acknowledge pain and suffering is the WRONG thing to do.

This is not about how they do it over in India. This is about OUR culture. If you come from a different culture where cruelty to animals is acceptable, I really don't care, so long as you don't engage in it while you're in the US where it is illegal. Killing an animal in a inhumane fashion is cruelty, here.

Causing unnecessary pain and suffering while you are killing an animal is illegal. In our modern US society, it is also immoral. There really is nothing more to be said on this issue--those facts are not disputable. It doesn't matter whether you live in New York or Kansas. It doesn't matter whether you buy your meat in a supermarket or kill it with a bolt-gun in your backyard and use your skid-steer loader to hang it while you dress it.

It doesn't matter whether the animal is your lunch, your pet, or random wildlife. They deserve the same level of regard, respect, and application of conscience (that thing that is supposed to tell you that you've done something wrong when you cause another pain).

Slaughterhouses that deal with cattle and other large animals use approved methods which have been deemed humane. A bolt through the brain is the usual method of dispatch for cattle--not electrocution. It is quick, and it's painless. That's why it was developed in the first place. It is possible to end the life of a fish in the same fashion--a precise knife point through the brain, and they are gone before you fillet them.

I sleep just fine, because I treat the animals in my care humanely. Whenever I have access to the information, I purchase meat from animals that were treated humanely. I report people who abuse animals when I see it. I do believe that other animals are worthy of consideration, kindness, and application of conscience. I don't really care what other people do to each other out of my sight--that is out of my control--this is how I choose to treat others--other humans, and other living things. To do less is immoral.

I am not some sort of radical, or promoter of animal rights over animal welfare--this is about animal welfare, not rights. It's about the difference between right and wrong on a very basic level that applies to everyone in the country I live in. It saddens me that people feel they have the right to be inhumane, and that there is nothing wrong with that. The only thing I can do about it is report it if I witness it. Perhaps some fines and a court date will teach them the difference between humane and inhumane treatment of animals, and what is acceptable and what is not.

As for your cute question, "NRA or PETA"--they're both radicals. I'm not a radical. I think people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't have any interest in owning a gun. (I prefer bows). I don't have a high opinion of your stereotypical redneck NRA member. I think the PETA people are exactly the same, just on the other end of the spectrum.
I have no particular respect for radicals.
On the few occasions I find myself on the same side as either group, it is purely coincidental, as some of their interests overlap with the rational and sane. <lol>

I think rationality is becoming a lost art form. Everywhere you look, people seem to need to find something to be radical or fanatical about, and it always causes major problems. Seriously, what's wrong with having an opinion and being willing to compromise to get closer to it, rather than trying to get everyone to do it exactly your way?

How did you manage to turn a discussion on how to humanely euthanize deformed ball pythons into a discussion of whether or not it was 'necessary' to be humane?

Nobody is denying that animals have to be killed, for meat or illness, its going to happen. But it should be done with the least ammount of pain and the quickest method. Just because it is going to be dead, doesn't mean you should treat it as a peice of meat why its stive alive.

(forgot to quote, but this wansn't a reply to the above message)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

Okay, now I've got a problem here. It seems to me that you're okay with how an animal is killed as long as you don't have to do it. Do you eat meats, any meats? If you do, then you are partaking in the slaying of many different animals. Do you think that when a fish is gutted alive, this is humane, but I bet you eat fish? When a mullisk is pried open while still alive, is this humane? Do you think that zapping thousands of cattle a day with high levels of electiricity is humane, but I bet you eat meat? Do you think any business that slaughters animals as part of their process, kill their stock in the fashion you mention above?

Putting a "human face" on something is different than putting "human faces" on an animal. I'll let you look up what a metaphor is for this one.

Animals aren't people, so I can't depersonalize them. Yes, they are animals, so are the rats, mice, rabbits and piglets used in our hobby/businesses. So is the food you put in your mouth everyday. Do you worry about how that pork chop died you're going to have for dinner tonight? I am fully aware these are animals, every juicey, succulent bite I take of my porterhouse steak, I am aware I am eating a gloriously delicious animal. You may not be special, but my Mommy always told me I was special, you can be the vain one in this discussion. But honestly, do you really put this much thought into the killing of a snake, a rat, a mouse, whatever? You must not sleep at night very often.

You are correct, I do put myself first above and beyond any other animal on this planet. I run over that squirrel that for some reason won't get out of the road instead of swerving to avoid it and hitting another car or damaging my car in a number of ways. I put myself first every November when I put that deer in the sights of my rifle and pull the trigger.

You can empathize with the plight of an animal ready to die, but it's going to die. Taking care of your animals is not what we're discussing here. We were talking about the means of killing an animal that the owner decided must die, for whatever reason (doesn't matter). I was saying that we can't put the values of humans on an animal's life. This is where the human face metaphor come in. This is where humane/inhumane also comes into the discussion. See?

Again, you mention animals in your care, well I'm not. I'm talking about you saying animals need to be considered when they must die. For that matter, how many humans really care about the other humans? I won't take this any further here.

You talk about unnecessary cruelty. To whom are you talking about? The farmer in Kansas or the New York city dwelller? Are you talking about the Native Americans or the Jewish community? Are you talking about an NRA member or a PETA member? You can't put a stamp on this of your own design. That's called egotistical. See I too know some $9 college words.

Cruelty to animals is not what we're talking about here. Never in my discussions did I ever say, nor imply that you have to be cruel, but I guess it all depends on your definition of cruel. Are you of Kansas design or are you more of the New York city design. That's for you to ask yourself.

NRA or PETA? You decide.

We're probably done discussing this, since we have differing values. You have your views, and I have mine. You are entitled to your views as I am mine. I'm content with with that.

Jim Smith

---

Wow your whole post is just plain ignorant. I am left wondering what your point even is. I eat meat, wear leather, and don't swerve to dodge squirrels but I still agree with WingedWolfPsion. Non of these things invalidate the basic point that we should all avoid causing pain to others regardless of what species they are. Killing and causing pain are two different things. When we humanely euthanize we kill to end pain. You see the pain is the bad part, not the death. I kill and support systems that kill nearly daily and sleep fine. I try as much as possible to minimize the pain that is inflicted. If I find out my bacon provider is not following best practices I find a new bacon provider. I don't beat myself up for all that bacon I ate. With all death there is pain and with all attempts there are failures. I attempt to minimize pain. That means not causing needless death, minimizing the pain of the death I cause, and accepting the failures in my attempts and learning from them.

We CAN put the values of humans on an animals life. You clearly do not. I think society would be better off if we treated animal life with more respect and let the sanctity of human life go so that we could give human life the same dignified end that some of us try to provide our animals.

I am certainly not saying that you are cruel to animals. But I will say that your consideration for their suffering leaves something to be desired by my standards. Smashing an animals skull can be more humane than a lethal injection, its not the method that matters so much as the rational behind the method.

Why won't you put a human face on an animal about to die? Is it because your belief in your ways is tested by that face. I recently watched my grandfather take his last breath. I only wish that the law allowed my grandfather and I to exercise our belief that pain is the enemy not death. Maybe you should take a closer look at the strength of your conviction.