Posted on 09/14/2010 11:46:17 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
We are probably closer in our view of this than our posts would indicate back and forth.
Almost assuredly !!
= D
Thanks for that comeback to from occupied ga. Right on target.
Re post 31, of course he’s macho. Can’t you feel the testosterone oozing from every post by this tough guy?
I am so sorry to hear about your loss, and it was a loss, the “tough guys” on this thread notwithstanding.
When my beloved Bradley was euthanized, the vet was careful to first give him some kind of tranquilizer to “sooth” him. And it did. Then the heart-stopping drug was administered, and it was a quick, painless death (maybe 5 seconds). I wish that I could go that way.
People not oriented like you and me cannot understand the pain when we lose our beloved pets.
Thank you. Most of the time, yes, it doesn’t appear to be a difficult death. I had one die of a torsion on the way to the vets. That is a bad way to go.
This is what I get for breaking my own rule about responding to drunks and morons.
I think you missed the part of the report that noted the dogs were almost certainly going to die, regardless of treatment, and if they did live, would be contagious for the rest of their lives.
The animals had to be put down. In short, the appropriate medical treatment was given.
If you look at the case I cited, part of the basis for upholding the charge was the defendant’s attempt to self-treat the dog, which is also what Yoder did.
Furthermore, the dogs were “treated” by gassing them to death. The gas was administered in a manner that is illegal under the law, both in terms of the method used and the failure to have it supervised by a vet. Ergo, the method was not appropriate.
Accordingly, Yoder did not provide appropriate treatment and it appears that the statute, as interpreted, was violated.
You are confusing statutes with regulations.
Um, no. The provisions of Ag and Markets Law are statutes.
Why did he let the population get to that level in the first place?
Better to prevent than to let it get to that point, IMO.
But... Once he needed to put them down, he did put some effort into trying to be humane about it.
Fails the Nazi test, folks. Dogs still aren't people.
You are still muddling things.
The authority requiring the use of a vet to put down a dog is regulation in NY and a statute in PA.
The general cruelty statute you cite was NY and does not apply, as medical treament that was necessary (death) was given.
This was NY.
These are the state statutes. The regulations are consolidated separately in a volume known as the "New York State Code Rules and Regulations."
Feel free to poke around in the consolidated laws, and the court cases I cited and you'll see that I cited statutes, not regulations.
“Why do you keep bringing up PA law as if I did?”
Because the only law that states a dog cannot be killed by a dog breeder is a PA law.
You stated:
“The gas was administered in a manner that is illegal under the law, both in terms of the method used and the failure to have it supervised by a vet.”
This would be true in PA only, not NY where the events occurred.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.