Posted on 09/17/2013 5:20:11 AM PDT by Altariel
In Merced, Calif., it is perfectly legal for a police officer to take a critically wounded animal to the police shooting range in order to "humanely destroy" it, reported Wednesday's Merced Sun-Star.
Thanks to a decades old penal code, it is legal for officers to transport wounded animals for "humane" disposal at their shooting range.
Many animal lovers who are just learning about this practice are shocked that a police officer would transport a wounded animal to their shooting range, rather than to a veterinary clinic, for humane euthanasia or treatment.
According to Merced Police Chief Norm Andrade, the practice of transporting animals to the Gove Road shooting range is "rare," and the officers dread having to do it.
One Merced resident, 21-year-old Kathleen Emerson, heard about the shootings firsthand from city police officer.
She recounted the conversation to the Merced Sun-Star:
The police officer said, ‘We get calls about dogs that are hit (by vehicles) and still alive, and if they don’t have a tag, we take them out to the range and shoot them,
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
” even a euthanasia is around $500.” Less than half that around here. What does it cost to have a paid officer “out of service” for that period of time? Not just dollars, but not serving and protecting during that time.
The municipality should pay the vet bill under predetermined contract. Also, are police officers also trained as vets?
See post #9, thank you.
Vet care through your tax dollars? Ok...how much should the levy be?
There are some serious issues here.
First of all, euthanizing animals is extremely stressful, which is why some animal shelters offer very substantial pay for those who do this, but still have a very hard time retaining such people, who often have nervous breakdowns within two weeks.
Second, police work is already stressful, so they should be the last people asked to euthanize animals, except in an emergency.
Third, the unofficial policy of police officers killing dogs to establish dominance and control of a situation, is already out of hand.
Fourth, there is a risk that those officers who euthanize animals may become desensitized about killing. And while this is least likely, it should not be dismissed as a possibility.
Hmm. I’m a nurse, and I don’t think I’d have any problem giving a seriously injured, ownerless animal a lethal injection. It would make me sad for a little while but not stressed.
I have no idea how pounds put down unadoptable or very sick or injured animals though.
My dumb dog has been known to shuck her collar and get away for a little while, so it could be my dog we’re talking about here - anyone’s pet who lost a collar - one reason animal control should deal with the animal - they can read the microchip if the dog has one.
“To Serve Crackers”??
LOL
The law is for LEOs to take mortally injured wildlife like deer and feral pigs and put them down. In addition one of our volunteers contacted the Merced PD and spoke to a police lt. He responded that they do not take injured pets to the range.
And that pretty much sums up the sentiment behind Obamacare.
Thanks.
“Merced PD and spoke to a police”
And you really believe them?
The PPMs I rescued came from the Merced shelter.
Their kill rate is so high that an IHCUS member drove 8 hours on her own dime to spring them.
They KNOW the Portuguese huntrs are dumping the dogs after hours but refuse to even install a hidden camera on their property for fear that would “discourage” the dumping.
They could stop them for good but choose not to.
Merced is apparently one messed up place.
Is there anyone who reads this site regularly who is surprised at all by this?
***for humane euthanasia or treatment.***
Years ago, I watched a vet put down a horse with a needle. Someone asked why he did not just shoot it and he said..”Never shoot a horse. Always use a needle because it looks better”.
“...I don’t think I’d have any problem giving a seriously injured, ownerless animal a lethal injection.”
That’s the problem, though. It’s not just one, but animal after animal. The people who are paid to use heart needles at animal shelters often end up psychological basket cases, with severe PTSD.
I know it would bother me to put healthy animals down. My shelter dog is sleeping next to me on the couch now - a perfectly adoptable dog except she’s black. I didn’t even know about “black dog syndrome” when we got her. But killing a good healthy dog just because no one has taken her in three months? That would be very disturbing.
Pay me to euthanize a very sick or injured dog? No problem - and in my area it wouldn’t be animal after animal, we just don’t get that many hurt dogs - I’ve served on the board of health which supervises the shelter. After some of the things I’ve seen happen to people, dogs wouldn’t be a problem.
Ditto that. But in CA, they will probably declare vet care a right and force vets to treat wounded animals and the gov’t will pay them a minimal fee via taxpayers.
The “Government” says that it legal to kill innocent babies so why is anyone surprised about injured animals?
Obamacare will have death panels deciding who will live and who will die and some people don’t care.
Sorry, but I'd say merciful dispatch on the spot is still a better option. I've had dogs, I know how people feel about their dogs, how dogs can touch a special place in your heart.
But logically, its just not worth it to go through that much trouble to save a stray. There are millions of stray dogs out there, and its just not feasible to make any trouble over the issue.
If wildlife is mortally injured, it is inhumane to drive said wildlife to another location for the purpose of dispatching of it.
Either the wildlife is *not* mortally injured, as claimed, or police officers are being trained to become indifferent to the suffering of “mere” beasts by taking mortally wounded animals to a firing range.
Yep.
Indeed.
And some people here will be crying out “why weren’t we warned? Why didn’t anyone stop it?”
It would seem history is about to repeat itself, yet again.
Thank you for confirming your willingness to dispatch an animal with a *non-mortal* wound.
I’m sure there are plenty of Obamacare enthusiasts who will be equally eager to get rid of wounded/sick “undesirables” who, would proper treatment, also would live.
We have to keep healthcare expenses down, you know.
Well said.
I firmly believe God never desired mentally healthy individuals to euthanize animals while feeling either satisfaction or indifference.
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.