Columnist Steve Blow wrote an article for Sunday's Dallas Morning News that looked at Garland's animal euthanasia issue that made the news several times over the last few months. His column was very similar to my first post on the subject: euthanasia is the sad result when pet owners are irresponsible. Unlike his "investigative reporter" colleague, he witnessed a carbon monoxide euthanasia and concluded that we are "switching from one approved method of euthanasia to another approved method of euthanasia."
 
The city's pending switch was first detailed in a memo to the Council and city manager by Richard Briley, Managing Director of Health & Code Compliance, on Sept 30. Glancing at the comments appended to the online version of the story (as linked above), there is a persistent assertion that our Animal Shelter had some how been operating improperly. Mr Blow's colleague had claimed that there there were a number of illegal violations, which she never in fact investigated. She did contact the shelter with a list of supposed violations but did not wait for a response before publishing her claims. As Mr Briley's memo states, only one incident from her list appears to have been a violation, and that one by an employee that had been terminated for other reasons. In separate conversations with Mr Briley, I learned that most of the supposed violations were for incidents where no age was entered for the animal because the officer couldn't tell. The animal may have been four-years-old or eight years, as an example. The reporter and her source inferred that no age entered meant "really young" or something equivalent.
 
Sadly, for the many inches of newsprint and several television stories, the focus has been on what method that unclaimed, unadopted animals were killed. Mr Blow estimates that as many as 100,000 animals are euthanized in North Texas each year. For all the postulating and pontificating that we have seen previously (and documented on this blog), over population will continue, the same number will continue to die because nothing was done to report on the behavior that was the source of the problem. So much more could have been accomplished educating the public to have their pets spayed or neutered and to have encouraged more adoptions.
 
With respect, Mr Blow has finally made the correct observations and stated the greater good for North Texas pets.
 

From the Dallas Morning News:

Euthanasia uproar in Garland obscured real issue of animal overpopulation

09:39 AM CST on Sunday, December 27, 2009
By Steve Blow
 
What a lousy victory.
 

Starting Friday, lethal injection will replace carbon-monoxide gas as the city's primary method of euthanasia. Photo: KYE R. LEE/DMN

Yes, a passionate group succeeded in forcing Garland to change its animal-euthanasia policy. A new death chamber is taking shape at the Garland Animal Shelter.
 
Starting Friday, lethal injection will replace carbon- monoxide gas as the primary method of animal euthanasia at the Garland Animal Shelter.
 
But what a lousy victory. Because either way, almost 6,000 dogs and cats, puppies and kittens will still end up dead and in the city's garbage dump this year.
 
Forgive me if I don't break out the champagne to toast this triumph.
 
During the extensive news coverage of the euthanasia controversy, I kept wishing that just a smidgen of that attention could be focused on the real problem – the extreme overpopulation of dogs and cats in our area.
 
In fact, the only news I heard related to that real problem was bad news – a program to provide free spaying and neutering in low-income areas is flat broke and turning away pet owners.
 
That's the story that should have been in headlines, not this Pyrrhic victory of switching from one approved method of euthanasia to another approved method of euthanasia.
 
That's right. Contrary to misimpressions you may have gotten, Garland has always been using a euthanasia method fully endorsed and approved as humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
 
In fact, as I talked to Garland city officials about this situation, they seemed eager for me to actually witness the gas-euthanasia process. And so I did.
 
Mention of carbon-monoxide euthanasia creates images of a crude hose-and-tailpipe contraption. In fact, the city uses a commercially built system – a stainless-steel box about five feet on each side, attached to industrial-type bottles of CO.
 
Animals are placed in separate cages (up to four at a time) and rolled into the box. I watched as a single animal – a 55-pound pit bull – was rolled in.
 
A glass door makes the whole process highly visible. And it doesn't take long.
 
The dog sat docilely, looking back at me looking at him. The gas quietly hissed. And in about a minute, the dog suddenly wobbled, his eyes lost focus and he toppled over.
 
It was sad, quick work. And I wished that this dog's lousy owner could have been forced to watch.
 
The pit was picked up running loose. Animal Services Manager Diana Oats said he wore a harness and was well-fed. But no one appeared at the shelter to claim him.
 
No surprise there. She said such owners often prefer to get another puppy rather than claim an animal from the shelter.
 
And, of course, the dog wasn't neutered. A fresh litter of unwanted puppies may be on the way right now.
 
It's nice that there are people vigilant about humane euthanasia.
 
And rescue groups do a wonderful job of saving some animals and getting them into good homes.
 
But let's not delude ourselves. For all their effort, the underlying problem gets no better at all.
 
Almost 6,000 animals will die in Garland. And that's just the start. About 30,000 will be put down in Dallas. Some say the total for North Texas could be as high as 100,000 a year.
 
We've got to find a way to wake up irresponsible pet owners. Sentencing them to a day of death-chamber duty might be a start.
 
And we've got to be as passionate about stopping the flood of unwanted dogs and cats as we are about plucking a lucky few from the river.
 
Garland begins a new policy on Friday, but it's no victory.
 

17 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Anne Fletcher [Visitor]

This is a bit slanted in the applause of this article vs. Katie's. I too have been following this issue closely. There are other issues at the Garland shelter that involve animals being put to sleep after having been tagged or put on hold for rescue. This would include a pug, two senior Brittany Spaniels, and a Cane Corso all fairly recently. I am almost certain there are others of which I am not personally aware. I have personally seen very young puppies fed large nugget adult dog food they could not fit into their small mouths to ingest and curled up sleeping in empty water bowls. Rescue groups are reluctant to share all the unpleasantness seen at the shelter in the past for fear of the shelter staff being unwilling to work with them in the future. Most of what happens needing improvement at this shelter lies in policy vs. lack of good intentions on the part of staff. For example, the policy in place that does not allow for the rescue of any dog or puppy deemed to be a pit bull or a mix thereof without taking into account the temperament of the dog. I have a neighbor that currently has such a dog from Garland who after much grit and determination on her part she was able to save from the shelter by convincing an attendant to change the dog's breed. The dog is very most likely not part pit and as an adult her temperament has been proven to be delightful if she is indeed a pit mix. The shelter has many dedicated officers who care but they also have some shortcomings to work on. Since the shelter has fallen under so much scrutiny, there have been improvements. As to the use of CO chambers for eu purposes, there are ideal situations under which they may be effective and humane. Many states, most recently NY, have done away with the chambers as they can easily be abused and misused. They should not be used on the very young or the very old, pregnant animals, bulldogs or animals who breathe more shallowly as the result of medical conditions such as advanced heartworm cases etc. All of these conditions may not be evident upon the choice of eu mode to be utilized. I saw an evening news report where they said two incidences of misuse were on file at Garland so how many more might there be? If gassing is indeed an equally humane mode of eu, then why has the method been outlawed in so many other states and put aside for lethal injection by sodium pentobarbital as the only legal mode of eu? My greater concern would also be the spay and neutering of animals, the education of prospective adoptive families and personal responsibility. One cannot discount the good the bringing to light of so many of these issues by the "other reporter". She has helped the animals of Garland by exposing the issues at the shelter resulting in the city's decision to expand their advisory panel and take the shelter's issues on. I have to ask if watching one animal being put to sleep in a chamber qualifies one to say that gassing is a preferable mode of eu? Also would one assume that a gassing with a reporter or city official present necessarily represents the same quality of death as those performed on a daily basis without witnesses? I don't honestly know. Do you?

12/28/09 @ 18:40

Comment from: Alice Reagan [Visitor]

Your constant reference to Katie Fairbanks having conflicting interests since she is a supporter of animal rescue is getting VERY old. Maybe you should discuss the fact that a Bark Park member was recently added to the Shelter's Advisory Board (in fact 3 of them applied for the position) when Darren Lathen (a Garland City Council member) is a volunteer for that very group, and is listed as such on their website. I would call that a conflict of interest also....but, of course, you don't mention that. As usual, you take an "opinion" by Steve Blow, and state it as if he were an authority on the subject. I agree with the fact that animals will be euthanized unnecessarily regardless of the method, but the fact still remains that Garland is the largest city in Texas to still use the gas chamber, and that the Garland City Council doesn't care that their City is getting a bad reputation because of that fact. Another interesting fact that you choose to ignore is the shelter's ignoring offers from local resources to their fullest to spay and neuter low income family pets. This could drastically decrease the puppies and kittens born in Garland, but the shelter has not attempted to utilize those offers to their fullest.
But you don't want to talk about that, right?

12/28/09 @ 22:59

Comment from: Deborah Morris [Visitor]

Just curious... do either of the other commenters on this thread actually live in Garland?

I do. I've also personally adopted several pets from the shelter, and retrieved one of my lost dogs from there. In each instance I found the staff polite and helpful, and openly affectionate toward the animals in their care. I've seen one staff member with tears in her eyes when a young family brought in a family pet due to financial difficulties; she spent a long time trying to brainstorm some solution for helping them keep their pet in their home. The desk staff often have a needy dog either on their lap or at their feet. These aren't people "just-doing-their-job".

There is no perfect business, company, or organization. I'm sure that mistakes have occasionally been made at the Garland shelter--but the same goes for the shelters in Plano. And in fact, my one interaction with a shelter in Plano, helping a friend try to track down a lost cat, made the Garland staff look very, very good by comparison.

Biased reporting is tacky and unprofessional. Steve Blow did an excellent job of balanced reporting, and of focusing on the bigger, more important issue.

12/29/09 @ 08:35

Comment from: Anne Fletcher (Answer for Deborah Morris) [Visitor]

I live in Rowlett, but I live closer to the Garland shelter than to the Rowlett shelter. I live off of Miller Rd. If you read my letter, it was not critical of the staff, but rather policy. I have adopted and rescued quite a few dogs from Garland and even more from Rowlett. All spaying, neutering, vetting heartworm treatments, ringworms bad knees etc. at my own expense prior to placement with families. I have spent well over $10,000 of my personal money doing so and I know others in rescue who have spent far more. There is absolutely no comparison between the Plano shelter and Garland's, NONE! Plano has not used gas chambers for many years and have never once to my knowledge killed a dog who was tagged for rescue. They will begin the treatment on heartworm positive dogs who have adoptive families interested in them. They allow the adoption of bully breeds depending upon temperament. All dogs are given an equal opportunity for placement if they are of acceptable temperament. The Plano facility has orthopedic bedding and feeds puppies food they can ingest. Have you truly visited both facilities? Plano and Arlington as well as Tri-City are among the best of the larger cities. Rowlett bends over backwards to place dogs and cats having a much smaller tax base. I am a teacher at a small private school in Rowlett and love both children and animals. In fact they are my passions. I have no motive to misrepresent the Garland shelter. I have not attacked the shelter but rather made suggestions for improvements. I have donated food, cash and supplies in the past at many shelters including Garland's. I live less than 5 miles from the Garland shelter so do you consider me to be an outsider? I know there are ACO's who care deeply at Garland and have repeatedly stated so as well as spoken with your mayor and city officials to that effect. If you are comfortable with the policies and conditions at your shelter then can I assume you would not mind your animals meeting their demise there in a chamber if you became ill and unable to care for them? Do you know the adoption rate at your shelter vs. Plano's as well as the return rate? There is no comparison in either area. I would much rather my pets and rescues land at Plano were something to happen to my family and we could not care for them. The adoption rate is 85% there. Truly there are areas in which your shelter can improve. Please encourage them to continue on in a positive direction.

12/29/09 @ 09:28

Comment from: Alice Reagan [Visitor]

Ms Morris - Yes, I do live in Garland and have for 33 years. I too have adopted pets from the Garland shelter. The only comment I made on the shelter staff (and that would be the management) was in regards to not accepting spay/neuter discounts for low income families in Garland.
MY comments were directed at Mr Athas and the Garland City Council being just as biased with the Bark Park relationship as Mr Athas continues to state Ms Fairbanks is biased.
Did you actually read our comments, or are you just a City Council puppet also?

12/29/09 @ 19:55

Comment from: Deborah Morris (Response to Anne Fletcher) [Visitor]

Anne, thanks for your response, and also for your service on behalf of the animals. Given your proximity, I do not consider you an "outsider"; I *did* consider as outsiders many of the Dart-train-to-Garland protesters who received so much play in the earlier biased and inaccurate DMN articles.

The Garland shelter could be improved, and as I understand it is actually in the process of being improved in various ways, but the method of euthanasia isn't the #1 problem despite the media hype. I don't know the actual adoption rate in Garland; if you do, I'd like to hear it as long as it's from a reliable source. The issue you mentioned with proper puppy food--was this a one-time event, or a consistent factor? One-time events can and do happen everywhere from time to time, but if that's an ongoing problem there is no excuse.

Your question re: one of my own animals being put down in a gas chamber vs. by injection, I will answer clearly: the ONLY problem I have with a properly operated gas chamber is that a friendly human can't be stroking and comforting the animal as it loses consciousness. Other than that, CO2 chambers aren't horrific or scary, and they don't provoke symptoms of distress (retching, thrashing, etc.). Houses with gas require CO2 monitors for the very good reason that without an alert, you can literally die in your sleep without being aware of what's happening.

My #1 concern is reducing the number of animals killed. A higher return-to-owners rate, a higher rescue & adoption rate, a higher spay & neuter rate. Anything that can improve those rates has my vote, along with anything that improves the
living conditions of the animals who end up at any of the shelters. I do like the PetHarbor website, which Garland and most other area shelters participate in.

12/30/09 @ 10:12

Comment from: Anne Fletcher (Answer for Deborah Morris) [Visitor]

I have written to Douglas Athas directly as he had answered my comments directly via my home computer. Both he and your mayor now have information to research for themselves and offers of help in the form of a shelter walker to both take pictures of and circulate ALL of Garland's adoptable animals more broadly rather than to only the 4 or 5 rescue groups whom they most enjoy utilizing. Pet Harbor is but a drop in the bucket to the exposure available for your unwanted animals and 4 or 5 groups can not begin to intake all your unwanted animals. The cost in housing and vetting theses animals is rarely less than $500 per animal while awaiting adoption and can run into the thousands of dollars with animals with health problems. While as 501C3 rescues there are discounts available, the vetting is still not free. So, the more groups your shelter welcomes the more animals that will be rehomed. I have sent them examples of what other shelters who allow volunteers do to encourage adoption and rescue for their cities' animals. Both your officials seem very open to exploring those avenues. You will find that to be a tremendous benefit to your rescue and adoption rates while attempting to prevent future animals from being surrendered by altering and education which is unquestionably the main goal. So that it can not be disputed, ask your city the adoption and rescue rates at your shelter. You will not be impressed and will no longer consider them in anyway above or equal to Plano. Remember I have no vested interest in any city other than the welfare of the animals. I agree with you that I would want the more personal touch of holding my animal but my preference would be the better housing, food, medical care and greater chance of their receiving a new home and family. Please consider walking the Plano shelter.

The puppy deteriorated before my eyes and the eyes of many others. All of whom complained at the time and made offers of help which were not accepted. I do not want to dwell on things that cannot be undone but rather see to it that in the future such puppies and kittens are fed canned foods which I have donated to your shelter and other individuals have as well including vets I personally know of who donate both food and medicine. Also your shelter can go to the Science Diet site and apply to receive free food and they will even provide the shelter with sample foods to send home with adopted animals.

CO2 chambers are actually very inhumane. Your shelter utilizes CO chambers and yes, WHEN USED PROPERLY they are considered BY SOME not although a lesser choice than lethal injection to be an acceptable one. The Garland shelter purchased the chambers from Plano after they voted to go entirely with lethal injection. If you are truly interested which you seem to be you can google search and find all the states which have gone to lethal injection by sodium pentobarbital as their only mode of eu and why. People who were not killed so peacefully by home gas leaks and survived the experience will not relay it to you as having been pleasant one but rather an excruciating one. Herein lies my concern with gassing.

12/30/09 @ 15:35

Comment from: Deborah Morris (Response to Anne Fletcher) [Visitor]

Thanks for the additional info, Anne. Oddly enough, the reason I'm rather acutely aware of the effects of CO2 poisoning is that, in my lengthy career as a writer of real-life rescue and survival stories, I interviewed a number of families who narrowly escaped death by CO2 in their homes. None of them related anything excruciating, but in the typical case of gradual poisoning they reported increasing headaches, fatigue, and finally nausea before sleep overcame them. They all assumed they were coming down with a virus and went to bed. These effects came of a gradual 4+ hour exposure inside older, not-tightly-sealed homes.

The difference with gas chambers used for the purpose of euthanasia is that they *are* tightly sealed, and the gas exchange is deliberately high-volume and efficient. The animals lose consciousness very quickly, without the unpleasant side effects that my human subjects suffered due to a slower exposure.

There are much, much worse ways to die, including many covered by the AVMA report in 2007: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf. If Garland were beating animals to death I'd be out there marching with the protesters, but the gas chamber isn't a torture chamber. It's adequate and humane, but the injections are simpler.

Again, you have my personal thanks and appreciation for your interest in, and donations on behalf of, the animals in the Garland shelter. I will nag my own city council rep along with Mr. Athas to follow up on the leads you provided; we should certainly take advantage of every sensible offer out there to make things better.

12/30/09 @ 15:55

Comment from: Anne Fletcher (Answer for Deborah Morris) [Visitor]

Perhaps the higher volume intake is the reason for the burns in the throat tissue and nasal passages of the animals who do survive the first failed gassing attempts according to the cases documented by the North Carolina Humane society in their efforts to do away with the use of CO chambers in their state. I have no personal experience with this and can only repeat what I have researched on line. I did speak with the lady who drafted the legislation in NC when researching this issue. Perhaps they are all ill informed.

Rather than beating this issue to death and both quoting different sites and opinions, I am delighted to hear you are interested in improving the quality of life at the shelter. We are probably not far apart in what we would like to see happen for the animals.

12/30/09 @ 16:44

Comment from: Lee Lutz [Visitor]

To address Ms Morris' concerns: someone who happened on this site asked me to address your worries.I am a long time Garland citizen and attended one informational picket and helped residents sign in for speaker or position cards on 2 occasions.
Standing handing out flyers, the people around me - say 8-10 were ALL from Garland.I did not know most of them but they were clear as to where they lived.Helping to sign in people , I would say about 75% were from Garland as I could see there addresses.A handful from other cities represented their groups such as an expert on feral cats( certainly a rarity) and rescue/ adoption groups.I hope this helps you in your thinking.

12/30/09 @ 17:39

Comment from: Mike Pentecost [Visitor]

Excellent points, Doug. I have researched the information regarding animal euthanasia, and the information presented by the protestors was misinformation at best. Mr Blows article finally brings levity to this issue, presenting a balanced view that deals with the real issues. The activist "Doctor" has been separated from the world renowned clinic he was associated with, most likely because of his extreme views. The group that has been showing up to protest and march on City Hall does not speak for the majority of Garland residents that are rationale and balanced. This group is on the fringe, supported by PETA and the like.

As far as the number of people showing up to speak... that has much to do about nothing.. Just because ACORN can bring in 30+ people to speak doesn't mean they have valid points to change the direction of the city. I remember when the Council Chambers were filled with people that were requesting a former City Council to call for Spring Elections (only a few rogue speakers spoke for the sitting council to NOT call an election). When they refused to call for Council elections and were forced by the Courts to call an election, some of the speakers still supported the illegal position of those council members (and still support them to this day) Some of the supporters of this "Animal Rights" movement, posters on this blog and others, are the same one's that supported the illegal actions of that city council. I guess it shouldn't surprise me they are still misguided.

12/31/09 @ 16:58

Comment from: Anne Fletcher (ANSWER FOR MIKE PENTECOST) [Visitor]

Since I am primarily the most active poster on this blog, let me state that I have not attended one protest nor is the gassing my main concern at the Garland shelter but rather improving the placement percentage of pets with rescue groups and adoptive families vs any form of EU, stronger spay and neuter incentives and owner education. I do have to repeatedly ask if this mode of EU is equally humane, why then did Plano sell the chambers to Garland at a fraction of the original cost to go exclusively to lethal injection by sodium pentobarbital as the sole acceptable mode of EU? Also may I ask why state after state is doing away with CO chambers as a legal mode for EU and only utilizing lethal injection? Are all the legislators of these laws ill informed? I honestly can not attest from any personal experiences or to having first hand knowledge of what the animals endure when they are of a shallow breathing nature, however, I can intelligently assume that there is some reason why all these professionals and lawmakers have deemed gassing to be to be inhumane elsewhere such as in NY most recently and NC is legislating for the same as we debate. I am unfamiliar with anyone from PETA and do not know what ACORN is. I also have no idea what illegal positions you are referring to that your councilmen have supported though I am certainly now curious. I am simply a teacher, mom and wife who is involved in dog rescue. I have also been an avid supporter of Visiting Nurse, Scottish Rite etc. over the years. My only interest in this is the welfare of those who have no voice. I admit to loving children who learn differently and all kiddos for that matter, animals and to being an advocate for both. What drives you to be pro-gassing just out of curiosity? Do you have an interest in animals and honestly think it is a more gentle death than lethal injection? If you have truly researched this subject on line I have always seen it listed as "acceptable" when used correctly and the chambers are in pristine condition but never as preferable to lethal injection.

12/31/09 @ 19:23

Comment from: Mike Pentecost [Visitor]

I don't know why Plano sold their chambers to us at a discount price. It seems that's a good deal for Garland, rather than paying full price.

A previous city council refused to call spring elections to consolidate their power for several more years. However, after Doug and several other advocates stood up against them, to the point of taking legal action, the city was forced to call an election in which the all those on the council that were up for election were either removed or did not run. The extra legal and alternate election costs exceeded $500,000, which the taxpayers had to pay. Some of those posting on this blog and others claim to be community leaders and such. Right.....

ACORN is an activist group which has been a total embarrassment to our president. Just Google the name, and you'll find out all you need. They recently came before the City Council attempting to get the City to move towards Income Based Utility Rates. So much for personal responsibility.

Researching the various forms of Euthanasia, the AVMA provides very good information on all methods. As far as gassing goes, if properly administered, it is a very humane method, and also very safe for clinic workers when dealing with wild or feral animals. I am for the safety of the workers AND humane euthanasia.

All that being said, the root cause is over-population of animals, irresponsible owners, etc... Lets work on those issues. I am sure the City will work with those in the Community to make reasonable improvements to help reduce the root causes. I have found the City to be very receptive in the past, and am certain they will continue to make Garland a great city.

12/31/09 @ 20:24

Comment from: Anne Fletcher (ANSWER FOR MIKE PENTECOST) [Visitor]

You think then that Plano considered the CO chambers to be equally humane and was just being either nice or stupid? Why then are all the other municipalites and states stopping gassing and utilizing only lethal injection vs. the other way around? It makes sense to me that if our nation as a whole is moving away from the use of CO chambers there is a reason why. I agree with you that the safety of the ACO's is of the utmost concern and I know there are many offers on the table to educate them in safe lethal injection methods.

I do strongly agree with you that irresponsible owners and puppy mills are to blame for the overpopulation problem and are why most pets find their way into the shelters to begin with. Remember however that Garland citizens do become disabled, suffer devastating financial blows resulting from divorce, job loss then home loss. die etc. and when these things happen their pets may end up in a shelter for reasons beyond their owners control. In these cases as well as in those cases of the poor simply discarded animals surely the city's taxpayers pets deserve the best opportunity possible to be rehomed, decent care and as gentle a demise as possible when placement or rescue is not an option. I agree that those issues which prevent EU altogether are the ones to which the most attention should be paid but I am still baffled by the determination to hold on to the chambers despite the national movement away from them.

I do recall the voting scandal now and I guess it was just so out of context to the discussion most especially with my being unfamiliar with the income based utility debate in Garland.

Rowlett's businesses petitioned a second election after the initial law to ban smoking in restaurants passed which cost us $13,000 I believe. The ban was upheld, the second election costly.

I have to say that although I have no personal interest in the protests as the gassing is not my main concern with the shelter, I do admire those who stand up for what they believe in strongly. Protests and other lawful acts of dissension have enabled women and minorities to vote and the list of advancements goes on.... If we all agreed on all things and there were no debates or stands made not only would life be a bit boring but advancements and balance would be lost. So perhaps do not hold the protesters in such disdain. They could be your neighbors or go to your church. They could be right. Neither you nor I are experts. Look how differently we have both interpreted what we have researched regarding the quality of death by gassing. I believe we are both good intentioned individuals and active in our communities. Though I do not know the other posters personally I believe Lee Lutz is very much a community leader, was involved with nursing home reform maybe and received an award for her volunteer work in an area that was not animal related. I remember the name from a council meeting several of which I have attended.

Off to celebrate the New Year with my family and friends. May it be a good one for the folks and animals of Garland alike!

12/31/09 @ 22:12

Comment from: Douglas [Member] · http://www.douglasathas.net

A cautionary note: I don't encourage person-to-person posts and usually delete them, preferring that discussions be done elsewhere, such as GCF. I've allowed it this time because the discourse has remained mostly civil and some good information has been shared. Should that change, I will enforce my regular policy.

12/31/09 @ 23:27

Comment from: Deborah Morris [Visitor]

To provide a general response re: why shelters are switching to injections, it's pretty simple: it's a lot less tricky to do right and it has fewer restrictions. With CO2, certain animal conditions can make them less susceptible to the gas and slow the effect, which can bring on unpleasant side effects--although we're still not generally talking about horror shows. Low blood pressure or a heart condition (present in many geriatric animals) can slow the effect, along with weak lungs or small lung capacity (as in very young animals). Unborn animals can suffocate when the pregnant mother dies from gas. That's why the guidelines prohibit gassing elderly, very young, or pregnant animals. And the last I heard, despite the DMN article which made many unfounded allegations, the Garland shelter had exactly one improper gassing, which was reported and which received an immediate corrective response long before the DMN and protesters became involved. Is one too many? YES. But again, it's not the horrific scenario presented in the media recently.

When used properly, CO2 chambers are fast and humane, which is why the AVMA still lists it as an acceptable option. They're also preferable for vicious animals, since they're safer for shelter staff.

01/01/10 @ 07:52

Comment from: Anne Fletcher [Visitor]

I concur with Ms. Morris. My point exactly.

01/01/10 @ 09:39

Comments are closed for this post.