Women throws puppies in to river

Initiate
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:57 am

PostMon Feb 14, 2011 5:12 am » by Lavell1


Women throws puppies in to river
When a dog has puppies, most people decide to put them up for adoption. Some may bring them to a shelter. Some might keep them. This sick girl decided to throw them into the river.
Very... graphic


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb4_1283184704

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:39 pm
Location: Oceanic 815

PostMon Feb 14, 2011 5:53 am » by Epicfailure


sad thing is, if they bring it to a shelter, the chance of that thing actually living isn't that much greater....

it's a sad truth...

such a sad story.
Image

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:32 pm
Location: Nova Scotia

PostMon Feb 14, 2011 6:02 am » by Buhdoo


Yeah that is a sad story.. right about the shelters too. My sister works at Battersea dogs home part time and she often talks to me about how hard she finds it there.. getting attached to the dogs she walks and then going in the next week to find out they have been put to sleep.. I couldnt do that job..

Initiate
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:51 am

PostMon Feb 14, 2011 6:13 am » by Crolin


that is just evil, had to turn it off, god i wish i was there, she'd be black n blue

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:09 am

PostMon Feb 14, 2011 6:20 am » by Nilm33


Wierd how I can watch peoples heads get chopped of in blood gurgling detail but I cant even fathom clicking on this link. Youre evil just for watching it. Dogs rock

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:16 am

PostMon Feb 14, 2011 8:48 am » by Stratafire


Want do you want someone to say?

Is it cruel in appearance? "Yes"

Is it wrong that she did not have her dog fixed? "Yes" (that is if she could afford to have the dog fixed)

Is it "morally" wrong to do what she is doing? "Depends" .. if it's a game "yes", if it's because she cannot afford to feed them, and nobody takes them, then it's more cruel to starve them do death..

I grew up in the country, it's a common practice to "cull" the heard of puppies by (warning graphic description) "popping" them on the head with a 5 pound sledge hammer (quick and merciful, not long and drawn out by dumping them somewhere and letting them starve to death, or become a feral pack of animals, praying on all things "young")

I would not have chosen "drowning" as an option (they would have to be a week old, and not much more for that to happen, but it's a more stressful way to "cull", not merciful and quick)

Thing is, take them to a shelter, and do what? , have them put to sleep by the practice of pumping air into the vein's to save on drugs and pocket the difference? (a very painful way to die when the air hits the heart) which most animal shelters do "behind the scenes" BTW, and have my taxes pay for privilege of animal destruction?

Out of every 3% that find a new home, 97% will be killed, out of that 97%, a rough number of 60% will die by lethal dose of air ejected into the veins with the difference in chemical usage savings being pocketed by the doctors, leaving around 37% that receive "proper" lethal injections (mostly from animal owners coming in with their pets that have either been damaged too far for salvage, or are just too old to continue living on, which means the doctors can "jack the price" of the opportunity to make money by 200% markup on the drugs used to perform lethal injections, all without the owners being aware of course)..

Which is more cruel?

Letting an animal shelter make money off the suffering of animals, with a very small percentage ever reaching a new home, pocketing profits from savings on chemicals used to perform lethal injections, and 200% on average markups for owners coming in for their pets to be "put to sleep"?

Or is it a "quick and painless" death in less then 2 seconds preferable? (pop!, done..) preferable, where the suffering is removed, and "responsibility" rests with the owner?

I agree that drowning is the wrong method, she should have used a "quicker" method then that..

I think it's far more wrong to have another take care of your responsibilities, and allow them to "profit" off your mistakes and cause more harm then you ever would (animal shelters), then it is to take responsibilities and try to give away the animals, failing that, "cull them", and have your animal spaded, or locked up during heat..

But then again, I'm a "country boy" by nature, so I take a different view on these matters...



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook