Sickening Dog Slaughter in Whistler

[Gman]

I couldn't believe this when I read it. Absolutely disgusting if the facts in the article are straight

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/arti ... n-whistler

[TheGingerMan]

It's hard to fathom how the employee involved could have carried out his employer's instructions without fully realizing the truly heinous nature of his act.

A report filed by WorkSafeBC on a claim for compensation for post-traumatic distress disorder sets out the details of the killings in graphic detail.

WorkSafeBC said an employee with Outdoor Adventures Whistler received compensation after he was required to shoot the dogs, but it declined to identify the manager who was responsible for the killing.

The report says the employee, who lived at the same location as the dogs, handled hundreds of dogs. Occasionally he euthanized animals, using a gun, with the support of a veterinarian.

In April, 2010, his job was to cull the herd of about 300 by about 100 dogs. A veterinarian was contacted but refused to euthanize healthy animals. Attempts were made to adopt out the dogs, but with only limited success.

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.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1888742/

[jimipresley]

Once again, I have to query: does a posting like this raise awareness, or is it just nasty shit that we all know already? I, for one, don't click on those links. I'm quite aware of how brutal the world is, as I'm assured virtually all forumosans are. Being informed of more horror is not suddenly going to make me take up arms. It's just going to nauseate me and ruin my day.

Any thoughts on this issue, folks?

It's off-topic, and I'm prepared to split it off, but I think the OP is a good reference point for a discussion on what I raised.

[bababa]

But this isn't shit I knew already. That a Canadian company operating a supposedly family-friendly company at Whistler would behave in such a manner astounds me.

[Stray Dog]

No nasty pics, as far as I know, jimi. Just a story that hopefully encourages people to question what they're paying for exactly when they they support the trade of using animals as entertainment.

What is most disappointing for me is that the SPCA there isn't concerned that the dogs were killed (because that's what they would do), but that that they weren't killed the same way they would do it. This, to me, is one of the major flaws within the animal-welfare field and one that needs to be addressed. We cannot possibly promote responsible animal care and guardianship if we kill those we are responsible for.

[bababa]

No nasty pics, as far as I know, jimi. Just a story that hopefully encourages people to question what they're paying for exactly when they they support the trade of using animals as entertainment.

This is it for me exactly. Dogs like to run; dogs bred to pull sleighs like to do so; so when I see what is supposedly a reputable company at a high-end resort offering dog sleigh rides, my first thought would have been that it is OK. The dogs are doing something they enjoy, and the customers are getting an unusual experience that should be making them feel closer to animals.
To find out that even here, in a supposedly high-end resort in the greater Vancouver area, a place where people feel they are more advanced than everyone else, the dogs are being tortured, is upsetting, to say the least. This could be a win-win system: dogs who enjoy doing what they do, and people able to make money off of it. Instead, the owners are obviously only concerned with the bottom line, to the extent they won't even cull the herd using humane methods.

[Gao Bohan]

Any thoughts on this issue, folks?

I'm with you. Life has enough sadness and horror. I don't need to see yet more pictures or articles about tormented animals or people. I can't even watch movies that portray too much suffering. Why would someone want to watch a two and a half hour film, graphically depicting a person dying of cancer? Or other such things?

I know that people are trying to raise awareness and/or inspire activism, but I think in most cases the only result is bringing more darkness to a dark world. I don't feel inspired, I just feel depressed. I don't begrudge anyone trying to spread their message, and this isn't a dig at the OP at all, but like you I don't really see the point of these threads.

[tommy525]

True. Awareness is good but too much focus on the darkness on our planet is not healthy. There is much that is good that is under-reported.

[kaipakati]

True. Awareness is good but too much focus on the darkness on our planet is not healthy. There is much that is good that is under-reported.

Yeah, I'm a non-clicker too. I think there's sometimes an aspect of traffic accident gawking about it, and I try not to do that either. I don't slaughter dogs, and neither am going to take up arms against those who do. I'm just going to continue doing what I do in my own little sphere of influence. Now, if my NEIGHBOURS suddenly started slaughtering dogs (or chopping their legs off - as Stray dog knows has happened in my neck of the woods before) then I would get involved, because there's something practical I can do. I trust the neighbours of the Whistler dogs are doing.

However, in this case, perhaps there is a valid point for education, particularly if the thread was renamed "boycott sled dog tourism" or some such.

I disagree with Stray dog's take on this

What is most disappointing for me is that the SPCA there isn't concerned that the dogs were killed (because that's what they would do), but that that they weren't killed the same way they would do it.

The SPCA takes a middle road that a majority of citizens can go along with, without feeling their world view to be challenged too much at either end of the spectrum. In this way, they have the power to act, where more radical groups only have the power to demonstrate. Their actions may not be what Stray Dog (or I) would consider BEST, but they are making an impact, they are educating, they are alleviating suffering, and they are bringing legal actions against people who cross the line.. even if that line isn't drawn quite where we all would like it.

On a scale, I would much rather those dogs were killed quickly and quietly without suffering fear pain and horror, than being butchered as they seem to have been (I haven't read the article). On that same scale, of course, at the ten out of ten position would be an advertising campaign that saw all the dogs adopted out and rehabilitated into loving family homes. We need the radical groups demanding no kill, because that's what will, over time, redraw the line. But in the meantime, I sincerely believe we need the SPCA doing just what they're doing, and bringing actions against perpetrators of horror.

[Stray Dog]

I disagree with Stray dog's take on this

What is most disappointing for me is that the SPCA there isn't concerned that the dogs were killed (because that's what they would do), but that that they weren't killed the same way they would do it.

The SPCA takes a middle road that a majority of citizens can go along with, without feeling their world view to be challenged too much at either end of the spectrum. In this way, they have the power to act, where more radical groups only have the power to demonstrate. Their actions may not be what Stray Dog (or I) would consider BEST, but they are making an impact, they are educating, they are alleviating suffering, and they are bringing legal actions against people who cross the line.. even if that line isn't drawn quite where we all would like it.

On a scale, I would much rather those dogs were killed quickly and quietly without suffering fear pain and horror, than being butchered as they seem to have been (I haven't read the article). On that same scale, of course, at the ten out of ten position would be an advertising campaign that saw all the dogs adopted out and rehabilitated into loving family homes. We need the radical groups demanding no kill, because that's what will, over time, redraw the line. But in the meantime, I sincerely believe we need the SPCA doing just what they're doing, and bringing actions against perpetrators of horror.

My argument is one that many SPCAs around the world echo, including the UK's RSPCA; they and I believe that taking on the wholesale killing of unwanted animals distances them from their reason for being--namely, to save animals in need. How can an organisation preach responsible care of animals when they kill hundreds of their own to make space for more . . . most of whom will also be killed?

Many SPCAs now are not taking in unwanted animals and are instead helping the people by providing humane solutions to whatever problem brought them to give up the animal in their care, be that training, medical help or advice, or ways to get the animal rehomed themselves. In animal-rescue groups that have taken on this policy, kill rates have been drastically reduced--at least within the animal org, which can now bring about change through leading by example. Bear in mind that SPCAs and other animal welfare orgs have, in some cases, increased the kill rate in their area simply by providing a convenient, 'acceptable' means of disposing of one's responsibility to a pet or other animal and washing one's hands of the killing act itself: "If the animal orgs say it's OK, then who am I to argue?"

SPCAs spend huge amounts of resources just on killing. That's not going to bring about change as effectively as channelling those resources toward prevention and raising the spirits of staff who no longer have to walk an animal in their care to his or her death--which, by any means, is awful. Frankly, I see little difference between a bullet in the head and a lethal injection, although my experience tells me that the former is quicker and the animal, being unaware of what is about to happen, may suffer less. That's not to say that the Whistler massacre was in any way done in this manner.

Having a policy that allows animal orgs to kill animals in their care unfortunately gives them a reason for giving up on making greater effort to help or rehome an animal in need of medical help or training. I have accompanied SPCA officers who killed a dog who had suffered a broken leg after being hit by a car--I was shocked, as this is not how I envisioned the SPCA worked; I honestly believed they would lead the way for humanity and fix the dog's leg, get his story in the newspapers, and rehome him while also raising awareness and funds. This same SPCA only had two puppies in its care at one rescue centre and yet the one with 'a cold' had already been singled out to be killed. These policies so often go hand-in-hand with a more relaxed attitude toward the rights of the individual animal and any hope that he or she might have had--one would think--in the hands of a so-called 'humane' animal organisation. Sadly, I see this lead being followed in new SPCAs that one would hope take on a fresh approach that puts the animal before established easy-to-follow guidelines and get-out clauses.