Mass sled dog slaughter in Whistler, B.C.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

rosyreef

Cornell CVM c/o 2015
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
it blows my mind how many people think dogs and other pets are just expendable objects that only hold a monetary significance.

just horrible.:wtf:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What I can't wrap my head around is, why didn't this guy refuse to take part? At any point in time, he could have said "enough" and removed himself from the situation. Or filed a report before the powers-that-be were finished doing away with the dogs. If he was that horrified by what he was doing, why on earth did he continue to do it?

It doesn't compute.
 
This makes my blood BOIL. The more I hear about the details the angrier I get.
 
Awful.

While I understand culling animals due to lack of usefulness (farm mentality, I guess - if something does not or can not produce, you cannot afford to keep it), these people had many MANY other options - everything from adoption and rescues to (last resort) humane euthanasia if the dogs simply could not be properly cared for.

Disgusting. Disgusting. We slaughter our pigs and cows more humanely than that.
 
Awful.

While I understand culling animals due to lack of usefulness (farm mentality, I guess - if something does not or can not produce, you cannot afford to keep it), these people had many MANY other options - everything from adoption and rescues to (last resort) humane euthanasia if the dogs simply could not be properly cared for.

Disgusting. Disgusting. We slaughter our pigs and cows more humanely than that.

My sentiments exactly. The article I read says that they weren't able to find homes for the dogs, but I have doubts as to how hard they actually tried to find homes.
 
The details in that story will definitely stick with you.

Ugh.
 
I saw somewhere that they tried to have a vet come to euthanize them humanely, but they refused to come put-down perfectly healthy animals. I can see how re-homing that many sled dogs would be a pain, but it wouldn't be impossible.

The man that did this has no soul. I try to picture myself holding a gun to the head of not one, but ONE HUNDRED healthy dogs and my chest just tightens in absolute horror.

This is a MAJOR problem with race horses as well. There are several agencies set up to re-home some of them but many are sold at auction dirt cheap (aka sent to slaughter in Mexico or Canda), donated to terminal projects or just plain killed. Any time animals are a business they become expendable. People see dollar signs and not a living being. It's really sad because most of the sports have great histories and traditions, just really awful dark sides.
 
What wrong with using a gun? Pre-vet/vet students seem to have a hard time understanding "the real world". I have a feeling that the vast majority of people on this thread would rather save the dog then the baby if someones house was on fire. One last thing, your animals are not your babies they are your pets (by saying this you bring to mind images of some old, lonely person who will one day deeply regret they never had offspring).
 
:mad::mad::mad:
This guy shot all these dogs and is now filing a claim against the company! No one had a gun to his head making him shoot the dogs, he could have stopped, even if he did have worries about going against leadership or whatever. No morals whatsoever.
And the guy said he had the approval of a veterinarian to shoot all these animals? I really hope he is lying.
:mad:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What wrong with using a gun? Pre-vet/vet students seem to have a hard time understanding "the real world". I have a feeling that the vast majority of people on this thread would rather save the dog then the baby if someones house was on fire. One last thing, your animals are not your babies they are your pets (by saying this you bring to mind images of some old, lonely person who will one day deeply regret they never had offspring).

Wow. So, WHY are you in vet school (I noticed your "veterinary student" status)?? I certainly wouldn't want you to treat one of my "pets".
 
What wrong with using a gun? Pre-vet/vet students seem to have a hard time understanding "the real world". I have a feeling that the vast majority of people on this thread would rather save the dog then the baby if someones house was on fire. One last thing, your animals are not your babies they are your pets (by saying this you bring to mind images of some old, lonely person who will one day deeply regret they never had offspring).

Either I missed your point or you simply didn't have one..?
 
I assume you're insinuating that using a gun is considered to be humane, provided it's done properly. This is true. However, in this instance, it wasn't being done properly. Animals were being wounded in ways that were not immediately- or quickly- fatal and left to die. Either the guy didn't know what he was doing, or he didn't care. (Or some combination of the two.)

Even overlooking whether or not killing the dogs was ultimately necessary (I'm intensely skeptical of how much effort genuinely went into the rehoming process), this individual's actions were clearly inhumane and inappropriate.
 
What wrong with using a gun? Pre-vet/vet students seem to have a hard time understanding "the real world". I have a feeling that the vast majority of people on this thread would rather save the dog then the baby if someones house was on fire. One last thing, your animals are not your babies they are your pets (by saying this you bring to mind images of some old, lonely person who will one day deeply regret they never had offspring).


The problem with using a gun is that the vast majority of people do not know how to use one effectively to kill an animal in one shot. Even with our cattle, we would not risk shooting them except clamped with a penetrating bolt. Even worse for horses, considering their skeletal structure.

I am very well aware that animals are below humans. Period. But that does not mean that if one must kill them for economic survival or profit, one should not bother to do it do it humanely and effectively.
 
I think everyone on both sides of the argument on euthanasia can agree that this incident was a gratuitously unnecessary and inhumane act. If there's one thing I am proud of about America, it's the progress we've made in animal rights. The Animal Welfare Act serves as a great statute for humane euthanasia for animals. I hope Canada adopts the same guidelines if they haven't already.

I'm sure that many adoption centers, vet offices, or animal welfare organizations would have provided that service or tried to find them homes. I don't buy the story that they tried.
 
I'm sure that many adoption centers, vet offices, or animal welfare organizations would have provided that service or tried to find them homes. I don't buy the story that they tried.

I got out of the story that they didn't even try.

It's even difficult to properly kill a deer with a gun (thinks back to the horrific tale my uncle told me... he hit a deer and it took the cops three or four bullets to kill it)

It's pretty difficult to adopt dogs out of shelters, let alone adopt out 100 high strung sled dogs to proper homes.

I don't know if you watched the news report, but one of the dogs had half of it's face blown off, it's eye hanging out and was running towards the guy with the gun. If you think that's alright, there is something seriously wrong with you.

One thing that blows my mind... this happened ALMOST A YEAR AGO... why am I only hearing about this now???

The animal welfare laws suck. A couple years back, A woman in my province drowned several kittens in a bucket and was charged a $12 fine. Also, I posted a link on the "Veterinary News Thread" about a woman who owned a puppy mill. She was charged with animal cruelty but was still allowed to raise puppies because they were considered "livestock" and not "pets".

Personally, I don't even think we should be treating livestock like that. Hence why I don't consume animals. If it has two eyes, a tail and poops, we shouldn't be slaughtering them for economic reasons. But I'm the minority.

They used to take all of the vet students in my school to the slaughterhouse. It was mandatory. They don't do it anymore. While a class was there, a cow got lose while being slaughtered and ran around screaming and bleeding. It freaked the vet students. Now it's not mandatory to go there.

What's the difference between blowing half of a sled dog's head off or having a cow run around bleeding to death? They are both used for similar reasons (provide people with entertainment and to provide people with food...) and both were killed for the same reason (too expensive to keep them alive).
 
Last edited:
Yet another reason why I hate the Olympics.

I am going to have to second this. What happened is deplorable however if we do a bit of root-cause analysis desperate financial situations are typical for countries after they have hosted the Olympics (i.e Greece). Countries are lulled into believing that hosting the games will bring them billions in revenue, and they do, but billions must be invested first for stadiums, accommodations etc. And as fast as the money comes, its leaves. I've heard that they are considering spreading the games over an entire continent to avoid this problem in the future but changing any established system, as we all know, is painfully slow.
 
The problem with using a gun is that the vast majority of people do not know how to use one effectively to kill an animal in one shot. Even with our cattle, we would not risk shooting them except clamped with a penetrating bolt. Even worse for horses, considering their skeletal structure.

I am very well aware that animals are below humans. Period. But that does not mean that if one must kill them for economic survival or profit, one should not bother to do it do it humanely and effectively.

Well said, WhtsThFrequency.

Are you really a Veterinary Student, Parasitologist? You don't seem to like animals very much (or Veterinarians), and honestly I think you're borderline trolling here. I don't think any of us said we'd save a dog over a baby, or that pets were like children (although many people feel that way, including many of your future clients I might add).

What we said was, it doesn't seem that other options were explored, and even if they were, this was not humane euthanasia. You don't have to be a "pet person" to treat animals humanely, and that includes giving them a humane death even if they are only a business to you. I eat meat. I'm fully aware that things like culling are necessary in those industries. That doesn't mean we need to abuse animals or treat them inhumanely for absolutely no reason at all.

Also, this isn't even the same issue as food animals or animal testing. This is more along the lines of racehorses - it's simply not the same as using animals for a purpose, such as farming or looking for a cure for cancer.
 
I may not like culling a bunch of dogs, but I'm not morally oppossed to it. That probably comes from my working dog background, farm background, and conservation biology background (lots of deer populations need to be culled.)

I think WhtstheFrequency put it succinctly. There are thousands of individuals in N. America that are adequatly trained to euthanize hundreds of animals; they work at high kill shelters and have few other options. While I can't object to culling out of hand, I can object to doing so in such a poor manner.

If a vet did approvae slaughter by gun while refusing to euthanize humanely, I hope a med board examines that vet's priorities closely. This is one of those fine line that many vets struggle with; is it better to do a humane 'convenience' euthanasia, or is it better to keep our hands 'clean' and have some responsibility for a much poorer death experience for these animals.
 
I am going to have to second this. What happened is deplorable however if we do a bit of root-cause analysis desperate financial situations are typical for countries after they have hosted the Olympics (i.e Greece). Countries are lulled into believing that hosting the games will bring them billions in revenue, and they do, but billions must be invested first for stadiums, accommodations etc. And as fast as the money comes, its leaves. I've heard that they are considering spreading the games over an entire continent to avoid this problem in the future but changing any established system, as we all know, is painfully slow.

Ditto. I heard a few things about the Vancouver Olympics that I didn't necessarily agree with. I read that they tore down low-income housing to build accomodations and didn't re-build them elsewhere.

Then again... my province has the highest tuition rates in the country (and it's going up 3% next year) I wish they would take some of that tax money and lower it instead of hosting the Canada (or is it Commonwealth?) games or building a useless trade and convention centre. Or... you know what would be better? A low-cost spay neuter clinic!

Never thought that the Olympics would have such an impact on these smaller businesses. It just hurts that this company purchased these dogs during the craze and had to get rid of them once the craze died down. It sucks.

It's 2011... what makes them think that they weren't going to get caught?
 
...what? Something tells me that if you are a vet student you are going into food animal.

My guess is that they are going into research with Parasit...in a lab setting where they never have to deal with clients and animals aside from their lab animals, of which I hope IACUC is all on their ass, making sure they treat their lab animals humanely.
 
My guess is that they are going into research with Parasit...in a lab setting where they never have to deal with clients and animals aside from their lab animals, of which I hope IACUC is all on their ass, making sure they treat their lab animals humanely.

Agreed!

I worked at a vet school helping with one of their research projects. The project required 27 horses and all of them were destroyed at the end. The horses were taken care of very well (that was pretty much my job) but it always amazed me how the higher-ups in the lab saw them as nothing but vectors for their research. I left my position right before they started "sacrificing" them. My job would have required me to be directly involved with that aspect. All of the horses are under 5 and I was pretty close to most of them so I knew I just couldn't emotionally handle it. Three of my favorite were put-down yesterday and it really tore me up inside...

But anyways, that more for a "Thoughts on terminal research" thread.
 
My guess is that they are going into research with Parasit...in a lab setting where they never have to deal with clients and animals aside from their lab animals, of which I hope IACUC is all on their ass, making sure they treat their lab animals humanely.

Hmmm....they are still going to have clients: granting organizations, research reviewers, journal editors, other researchers, IACUC, etc.
 
Hmmm....they are still going to have clients: granting organizations, research reviewers, journal editors, other researchers, IACUC, etc.

I wouldn't necessarily call those clients, but that is neither here nor there, what I meant was clinets letting him work on their animals directly...but we are getting a little off topic now, this is a thread about the sled dogs after all :)
 
Hmmm....they are still going to have clients: granting organizations, research reviewers, journal editors, other researchers, IACUC, etc.


I think the point was more of that many pre-vet/vet students get into the field because they adore animals and want to improve animal health. Parisitology's post sounded very cold towards animals and pretty much called everyone out as bleeding hearts. It would be very strange to have that attitude in a clinical setting. I doubt clients will appreciate the mentality of "it's only an animal" whereas in a research/food animal situation that mentality is pretty much required. (note: I do not claim that all researchers are cold-hearted).
 
But to get back on topic...


I think the biggest tragedy of this is that the public was not made aware of the situation until the man filed for workers comp. It makes me shudder to think of what heinous acts are being carried out without the public's knowledge.
 
I may not like culling a bunch of dogs, but I'm not morally oppossed to it. That probably comes from my working dog background, farm background, and conservation biology background (lots of deer populations need to be culled.)

While I can't object to culling out of hand, I can object to doing so in such a poor manner.

:thumbup: Agreed.

I like dogs - have one that sleeps on my bed at night - but they aren't pets to everyone, and I don't think a view of dogs as strictly pampered pets should be imposed upon everyone. Working dogs - whether they're cowdogs, sleddogs, hounds, etc - are viewed and treated the same way as livestock. I'm not opposed to culling of any species in principle, but I do think it ought to be done correctly.

Also - I don't have a problem with guns, but the right caliber gun should be used and the person had better know how to use it. Sounds like neither happened in this case.
 
Also - I don't have a problem with guns, but the right caliber gun should be used and the person had better know how to use it. Sounds like neither happened in this case.


From the sounds of the article, it seemed like he was trying to shoot the dogs from a distance (he said they were running away from him at one point). I don't like to think about it too much, but it seems like killing a dog with a gun would be a simple business if the dog is properly restrained. Why on earth they would not restrain the dogs it beyond me.
 
Right, because food animal people don't give a s** about animals :rolleyes:

That's not what I meant at all. The post did not say that they do not give a **** about animals and I never said food animal vets do not give a **** about animals. I don't know where you got that from.
 
The problem with using a gun is that the vast majority of people do not know how to use one effectively to kill an animal in one shot. Even with our cattle, we would not risk shooting them except clamped with a penetrating bolt. Even worse for horses, considering their skeletal structure.

The AVMA considers both gunshot and penetrating captive bolt acceptable methods of physical euthanasia for horses. I've seen guns used to euthanize horses extremely effectively.

Gunshot and the penetrating captive bolt are acceptable physical methods of euthanasia. When used in the correct manner, they induce death more rapidly than chemical euthanasia. They produce death in the same way, by disrupting the brain and causing loss of consciousness and subsequent death. Euthanasia by gunshot may pose an inherent risk for other animals and humans, and should only be performed by someone skilled in the method and in a safe environment.
From: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses_faq.asp

I think the point you make, and that the AVMA states, is that using a gun to induce death is NOT EASY. If you miss, even a little, you risk putting the animal into a panicked state, more pain, and certainly risk injuring yourself and other people or animals. Not just from the gun, but from a panicked, flailing animal - a horse could easily kill you if it kicks you in its panic, and I'm sure a sled dog could do a hell of a lot of damage.

This whole story is just a mess - while I may not agree with culling healthy dogs, I understand the need for it, and it is absolutely appalling that it was done in such a careless, inhumane way.

Also, :troll: , which Parasit clearly is. :rolleyes:
 
I know that some people go for a gun rather than chemicals because it is much cheaper. I have a strong feeling that this is probably why a gun was used with the dogs. It would take a lot of money to chemically euthanize 100 dogs, and considering the company was struggling financially I doubt they saw that as an attractive option.
 
Really? Then why is it the preferred method in Europe? I realize you're a resident and I'm just a pre-vet hopeful, but ... Done properly, I believe a gun is more humane on a horse than it is on cattle.


Are we talking gun as in rifle/shotgun, or gun as in captive bolt gun (which is the preferred method for cattle etc here in the US).

I don't know anything about Europe, but I would find it odd that shooting with an average shotgun would be more acceptable and preferred over injectable euthanasia. Perhaps you mean captive bolt?

The key word is done PROPERLY. Gunshot is totally acceptable, IF DONE PROPERLY. And many people think that just pointing the gun at the horse' head will work - it may not, due to their extensive sinus network, for example. If someone who knows what they are doing is shooting the animal, then it's much different.
 
Last edited:
That's not what I meant at all. The post did not say that they do not give a **** about animals and I never said food animal vets do not give a **** about animals. I don't know where you got that from.



Just be aware how you come off. Your comment insinuated that since this person obviously is very insensitive to animals, they must be going into food animal. Things can come off differently than what you mean when it's just typed on the internet.
 
Just be aware how you come off. Your comment insinuated that since this person obviously is very insensitive to animals, they must be going into food animal. Things can come off differently than what you mean when it's just typed on the internet.

All I meant was that this person seemed to have the mentality that "an animal is an animal" and the only time I have ever come across this mentality with someone who actually works with animals is in the food industry. I live in a very rural area and did 4-H for years and have always been amazed at how people can put a lot of love and effort into an animal and then happily send them off for slaughter. I am not saying all food animal vets are like this, but every one I have met is.

I was also raised vegetarian, so I obviously have a completely different mindset. Not better, not worse, just different.

I am usually pretty aware of what I write since I understand how text can be misleading. I obviously missed something and I am sorry if I offended anyone. It was not my intent at all.




Annnnnywayyyy..... back to the dogs....
 
Are we talking gun as in rifle/shotgun, or gun as in captive bolt gun (which is the preferred method for cattle etc here in the US).

In which context? The European context? I believe a handgun is actually preferable to a long-gun (because power of the weapon is not your issue; control of the animal and directing the force to the correct spot on the head is).

I was referring to your comment that a gun is undesirable, and I thought you said "even more so in a horse". My understanding is that compared to cattle, horses are much easier to euthanize with a gun (directed perpendicular to the forehead in the correct location).

That said - I'm pretty darn happy to concede to your level of expertise. I was just surprised at your comment.

In the end, I think captive-bolt and a properly used gun accomplish exactly the same thing and are essentially used in the same way.

Times have changed (for the better), I think. Back when I was a kid working on my uncle's farm in the summers I would have been laughed off the farm had I suggested calling a vet to euthanize an animal (any animal, whether one of their dogs, the livestock, scavengers, whatever). That's what the rifle in the corner of the mud room was for. I'm glad that generally we're more humane now.
 
LetItSnow

Ah, I see the misunderstanding

When I said euthanasia with your average gun is even more "undesireable" in a horse, I was assuming a layman would be doing the shooting (as it was in this case with the dogs).

Ie, the likelihood of an untrained person failing to kill a horse (and leaving it in extreme pain) is more than an untrained person failing to kill a different type of animal, like I said, because of their extensive sinus structure. In the correct location, it's fine - but many people don't know that the correct location and angle on a horse is slightly different than most animals. Sorry if I wasn't clear - does that make more sense?
 
All I meant was that this person seemed to have the mentality that "an animal is an animal" and the only time I have ever come across this mentality with someone who actually works with animals is in the food industry. I live in a very rural area and did 4-H for years and have always been amazed at how people can put a lot of love and effort into an animal and then happily send them off for slaughter. I am not saying all food animal vets are like this, but every one I have met is.

I think that you don't mean it to be, but that it does come off as very presumptious. I grew up in a very rural area and I raised animals that I did love, and I cried every single time I auctioned an animal off. It's great to have options in life, but at that stage in my life, the money I got from raising and auctioning livestock (generally co-owned with someone else putting the feed/purchase investment in) paid for me to go to college. I come from a family where the highest level of education attained was freshman in highschool. Is it wrong to raise a creature, give it the best life you can while it is in yoru care, then turn it over for another purpose? If so we should also shut down Leader Dogs for the Blind and CCI, since I did similar services for them.

I care deeply for animals, but to me an animal is an animal. I also don't feel all animals are created equal; the nasty aggressive dog at the shelter that already killed another dog and bit a kid doesn't get the same chance as the 3 month old pup that is eagerly seeking attention. I also wouldn't say that the dog in the shelter is going to get as much attention and love and resources from me as I give to my own dogs. Having said that, most animal producers that I know do have the occasional favorite critter that gets to live longer than usual. I have friends that regularly slaughter lambs for consumption that also just spent thousands at Tufts to save one sheep.

Completly off topic, but any blanket statement about categories of vets is likely to be off base. It would be like a large animal vet saying all SA vets are bleeding hearts moving towards animal rights.

At least in the states, a CO2 chamber would have been another option. I just can't imagine that there wasn't anyone anywhere that would have worked with this situation to at least ensure appropriate euthanasia.
 
I am sorry I ever said anything. I was just giving my opinion about something and no way was I saying "this is the way the world is/should be." As I said, I was raised vegetarian so the concept of raising an animal for the purpose of killing it is very, very alien to me. It probably didn't help that all the 4-H kids I knew who raised animals for slaughter knew I was vegetarian and tormented me. It was very traumatic as a 12 year old to have a peer tell you with a huge smile and laugh how yummy the cow was that you were petting last week.

And I also raised a guide dog through Guiding Eyes for the Blind. I was fortunate enough to be able to keep my pup (he has a collapsing trachea and can't pull a harness) but I raised him with the intention of giving him away. I think to compare giving away a guide dog and selling an animal for slaughter is a very very unfair comparison.

The idea of "all animals are not created equal" is also a strange concept to me. I 100% understand that violent/dangerous animals are not given the same rights, but I don't feel like they were "created" violent. I grew up on a horse farm and have ridden sport horses my whole life, but I am all for the opening of am equine slaughter house. Not on the concept of it supposedly reducing neglect cases, but because hey- why not? We slaughter cows, sheep, and pigs (which are smarter than horses) so why not horses? I really wouldn't care if they opened a dog slaughterhouse as long as it was done humanely. People who oppose slaughter of certain animals just because of their species are hypocrites in my opinion. I am not protesting the raising of animals for meat, I am just saying I could never personally do it.

And for the record, I never EVER said there was ANYTHING wrong with food animal vets. Just because it is something I can never personally do does not mean they are not needed by society. I said the personality of the poster reminded me of all the food animal vets I have ever known but I NEVER said they were bad people. I highly respect all of them and would have nothing ill to say against them.

I think people are reading too much into what I said and making assumptions. The seemingly cold-hearted post was made, people think "they're a dick!" then they see that I said "food animal" and people think I was calling all food animal vets dicks. Not so.

Le sigh....
 
Last edited:
I think people are reading too much into what I said and making assumptions. The seemingly cold-hearted post was made, people think "they're a dick!" then they see that I said "food animal" and people think I was calling all food animal vets dicks. Not so.

Le sigh....

That happens far too much on this forum. Get used to it.

I wasn't raised a vegetarian but became one 8 years ago. But yeah...it does drive me crazy that cats, dogs and horses have more "rights" (for lack of a better word) here in North America. "Omg did you hear about the 100 sled dogs being slaughtered?" while munching on a hamburger of unknown origin. It's one thing to think that all animals are beneath you, but it's another to pick and choose what species are considered worthy of love or a humane death.

Anyhow...

Back on the subject...

CO2 chambers may be legal in the US, but I thought they're pretty nasty. Isn't it basically suffocation? How is that a better death than shooting a dog in the face? If drowning is illegal, than how come CO2 chambers still alright?
 
Top