# Pennsylvania Puppy Mill shoots 80 dogs rather than see Vet!



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Heard this rather sickening news this weekend. I can't believe this kind of thing goes on!

Puppy mill in Maxatawny Township, Berks County PA. Probably Amish or Menonite.

KUTZTOWN, Pa. 
*A pair of dog owners shot and killed 80 dogs*, a decision that angered animal rescue workers but that was legal. 
Ammon and Elmer Zimmerman were breeding the dogs for sale on their Kutztown farms. 
A state dog warden ordered the brothers to have veterinary checks on 39 of the 80 dogs at their farms in July. 
The dog warden also issued violations for the animals' living conditions. 
Officers from the Animal Rescue League of Bucks County said rather than seek the veterinary care, the brothers killed all of the dogs, some of which were healthy. 
"He had an option, he could surrender them," said Officer Harry Brown, executive director of the Animal Rescue League of Berks County. "It's very disturbing because out of the 80, maybe 70 of them could have been placed in homes." 
Brown said he believes the Zimmermans chose to shoot the dogs, which is legal in Pennsylvania, to save money on treatments. 
They may have also feared they could be charged with animal cruelty if they had turned the dogs over to a shelter, Brown said. 
"Why? Why did you do this inhumane thing?" said Janet Berger, a long-time neighbor after hearing about the dogs. 
At Elmer Zimmerman's farm, where 70 dogs were shot, a tractor blocked the driveway Wednesday. 
At Ammon Zimmerman's farm, where the remaining 10 dogs were shot, the family declined to go on camera but spoke to their neighbor. 
"They didn't realize this would make such a big fuss," Martha Geist said the Zimmermans said. 
Geist said the vet had advised the Zimmermans that although their certifications were valid, that if they wanted to put the dogs down that they were allowed. 
"Now I don't know the method they used," Geist said. 
Elmer Zimmerman pleaded guilty to charges related to the dogs' living conditions. 
The brothers also surrendered their kennel licenses. 
Animal humane officials said legislation is being considered this fall in Harrisburg that would make euthanasia the only acceptable method for commercial kennel operators to put dogs down.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Welcome to the mentality of a group of people who's morals and view points are dictated by "faith" INBRED WHACK JOBS!!!!!


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

So sad.





Richard


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

It doesn't surprise me at all. About 16 years ago I purchased (at my then 9-yo son's insistence) a miniature schnauzer being sold locally by the "sister" of a private central PA breeder. Only after records became readily available for computer searches was I able to determine that the dog had been bred by Marvin Zimmerman of Lancaster who, at his own farm and in the farms of his siblings and children, was breeding over 1000 dogs per year. The sire for mine was "Bud - RB273835" and the dam was "Jam - RB276324". The various Zimmerman farms, all located within few miles of each other, has been subject to repeated citations over the years. My dog had major allergy issues throughout her life and was relatively brainless, but so was I when I bought her.


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Welcome to the mentality of a group of people who's morals and view points are dictated by "faith" INBRED WHACK JOBS!!!!!


What do you mean by "people who's morals and view points are dictated by 'faith' "?


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Jesus. 

Here's another link on the story, with a rather effective means of showing you just how many 80 dogs is, using 80 .22 calibre bullets. 

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=b0b2265b-5ce3-49fc-9ca0-466b6bfdf3e3

What should be of concern to all of us is that the general public often doesn't make the distinction between this kind of commercial operation and responsible small-scale breeders, and will vote to pass restrictive laws against breeding dogs, thinking that they are somehow alleviating the sort of situation that went down in Pennsylvania. 

I really feel for all those little dogs; their miserable lives cut short by vindictive and greedy miscreants, particularly as its thought that most of them could have been successfully placed through adoption.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I could be mistaken, but the 'inbred wack jobs' likely referrs to the Amish, who do run a lot of puppy mills in the Lancaster Co area.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I could be mistaken, but the 'inbred wack jobs' likely referrs to the Amish, who do run a lot of puppy mills in the Lancaster Co area.


If that's so, it kind of gives a differnet meaning to "Amish training"

JD


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

The term "Amish training" was always meant to simply imply training "without electricity" in the form of an e-collar. It was a light-hearted intent, back when RTF was much, much smaller, to put a nametag on those of us who choose to not use an e-collar.

As I'd written many times before, I personally did not feel educated or experienced enough to train with an e-collar. After I gained decades of dog training experience, along with some pretty thorough investigation of the methods and tools, I'm glad that I now train a working retriever according to a Rex Carr-based program. 

********************************

Please guys and gals, let's not let someone's religion or faith enter into being a determining factor in their foolish decisions around putting dogs down with guns.

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Breck said:


> Animal humane officials said legislation is being considered this fall in Harrisburg that would make euthanasia the only acceptable method for commercial kennel operators to put dogs down.


What the heck does this sentence mean? And how is it supposed to stop/control/etc something like this? Or is the intent to not stop it? I'm a little confused. 

Seems like a .22 to the brain is pretty fast and painless, so what does this sentence have to do with the story? Unless Pa. defines euthanasia differently than the dictionary, it doesn't address the issue. 

dictionary.com, euthanasia:

1.	Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2.	painless death.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Welcome to the mentality of a group of people who's morals and view points are dictated by "faith" INBRED WHACK JOBS!!!!!


My morals and viewpoints are a product of "faith". 

Whack job regards,


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

SloppyMouth said:


> What the heck does this sentence mean? And how is it supposed to stop/control/etc something like this? Or is the intent to not stop it? I'm a little confused.
> 
> Seems like a .22 to the brain is pretty fast and painless, so what does this sentence have to do with the story? Unless Pa. defines euthanasia differently than the dictionary, it doesn't address the issue.
> 
> ...


I was wondering the same thing. A .22 bullet to the brain and the dog feels nothing. For the needle, the dog get's clipped at the vein site, a needle goes in and then the drug. Seems like more chances of something going wrong.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Leddyman said:


> My morals and viewpoints are a product of "faith".
> 
> Whack job regards,



Terry & Torrey,

Do your morals and faith result in shooting a bunch a innocent animals in the head ?
Animals that in my "faith" I am responsible for the well being of, (insert Bible verse "it is a good man who sees to the welfare of his animals) or something along that line.

The faith of these individuals, seems to dictate that they profit from the improper care and treatment and then when big brother slaps their wrist for their actions they go and abandoned any decent treatment and once again fail these poor animals. 
It is a simple matter of respect, my faith dictates we treat companion animals that devote their lives to us with a minimum level of respect. My "Faith" and theirs are obviously not gathered, digested, and put in to practice in the same manner.

John


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Terry & Torrey,
> 
> Do your morals and faith result in shooting a bunch a innocent animals in the head ?
> Animals that in my "faith" I am responsible for the well being of, (insert Bible verse "it is a good man who sees to the welfare of his animals) or something along that line.
> ...


1. Faith or religion have nothing to do with the topic. Their faith/religion wasn't mentioned anywhere in the story nor was it used as an excuse to carry out their actions. There's no basis for using the topic as a talking point.

2. As soon as you start down the morality path when it comes to killing animals you open the door to anti-hunters. Stay away from anthropomorphism, lest it bite you in the butt.


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

DRAKEHAVEN -
Sorry...I think my question was misunderstood. My question was why does 'faith' matter in the case of the death's of these animals? I'm not real familiar with the story, just what I read on this thread. I was interpreting your post as "people of faith are whack-jobs" and these two people of faith killed all these animals? That's why I was asking...because I doubt that you meant that all religious people are whack jobs.

Here are my thoughts (take them for what they are worth). I highly doubt that these two men are people of faith. While they might belong to some religion, they obviously are not actively practicing the tenets of said religion. The slaughter of 80 dogs with a couple .22 shells to save some money shows that these men value money. The Bible says that a man cannot have two masters (God vs. Money). You will learn to love one and despise the other.

The animal activists are going to eat this story up and use to their advantage. Here's the problem....animal lovers, hunters, etc are not the problem. These two IDIOTS are the problem. But others will use their actions against all us law-abiding dog lovers who have as much contempt for these two guys as all the PETA and HSUS "whack-jobs". Ok...that was wrong of me to say. 


If you did mean that all people of faith are whack jobs....then whack job regards! 

Torrey


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

SloppyMouth said:


> What the heck does this sentence mean? And how is it supposed to stop/control/etc something like this? Or is the intent to not stop it? I'm a little confused.
> 
> Seems like a .22 to the brain is pretty fast and painless, so what does this sentence have to do with the story? Unless Pa. defines euthanasia differently than the dictionary, it doesn't address the issue.
> 
> ...



A .22 can go straight thru and not kill. Had an older farmer friend once decide to "euthanize" his old cocker that way and he's haunted forever by her stare back at him when it didn't kill her.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

torrey said:


> If you did mean that all people of faith are whack jobs....then whack job regards!
> 
> Torrey


When I first read Drakeheaven's initial post in this thread, that is what I thought he meant also. After his follow-up post, I don't think that is what he meant at all.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

windycanyon said:


> A .22 can go straight thru and not kill. Had an older farmer friend once decide to "euthanize" his old cocker that way and he's haunted forever by her stare back at him when it didn't kill her.


Can't imagine that horror.

However, whatever the means to euthanize/kill an animal, there's always the chance of something going wrong. Missing the vein/artery (whichever it is) or not using the correct dosage when euthanizing via lethal injection could be just as nasty.

After reading the link to the other story, I see that the Pa. law is about limiting euthanization to only veterinarians. Which would have made what these two did illegal.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Puppy mills & the Amish http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish8.htm


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Terry & Torrey,
> 
> Do your morals and faith result in shooting a bunch a innocent animals in the head ?
> Animals that in my "faith" I am responsible for the well being of, (insert Bible verse "it is a good man who sees to the welfare of his animals) or something along that line.
> ...


Sorry John,
I felt that remark as if you were painting with the broad brush... "this is what happens with people who believe in God"

You are right. The bible explicitly teaches that we are responsible to tend and to keep God's creation. The guy that killed a bunch of healthy dogs may be glad he doesn't have to occupy any dark alleys with me. I think he deserves worse than he will get.

The remark felt like a slam on religious people. Sorry if I got it wrong.

A hit dog always hollers regards,


----------



## torrey (May 15, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> When I first read Drakeheaven's initial post in this thread, that is what I thought he meant also. After his follow-up post, I don't think that is what he meant at all.


I know he didn't mean that. Was just joking with that last line.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

SloppyMouth said:


> 1. Faith or religion have nothing to do with the topic. Their faith/religion wasn't mentioned anywhere in the story nor was it used as an excuse to carry out their actions. There's no basis for using the topic as a talking point.
> 
> 2. As soon as you start down the morality path when it comes to killing animals you open the door to anti-hunters. Stay away from anthropomorphism, lest it bite you in the butt.


Very True....point taken.

JK


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

windycanyon said:


> A .22 can go straight thru and not kill. Had an older farmer friend once decide to "euthanize" his old cocker that way and he's haunted forever by her stare back at him when it didn't kill her.


In my opinion. The use of ANY firearm to "humanely" put down a dog is a crude proposition at best.

A few years back I was invited by some coworkers to their cabin in northern MN. 
We arrived late on Friday night and noticed a large black male Labrador running about. 
Come the light of day we were filled in by the neighbors that the dog had most likely been abandoned, as he had been around for a week or so. During that time the dog had come in contact with a bear and most of the left side of his head and muzzel was no longer attached but hanging loosely. It was quite disturbing, my friend called the local vet, he was unwilling to put the dog down with out payment. The decision to shoot, shovel, and shut up was made by the "neighborhood" and my coworkers husband volunteered to be the one. A 12 gauge was used some type of large load. All I have to say is that to this day if there is any cause to put a dog down and I am in any way involved, it will be done by a Vet. I am haunted for the rest of my life with what I seen.

John


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> In my opinion. The use of ANY firearm to "humanely" put down a dog is a crude proposition at best.


Does that hold true for coyotes? For whitetail deer? For turkeys? For waterfowl? For pheasants? What about bowhunting?

/a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy regards...


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

I'm not eating Rin Tin Tin


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Even I recognize the difference between killing an animal thats had the privalidge of being loved by an individual compared to one thats not.

It a little wierd to go around killing pets,,,, 


I can certainly discern the difference between what this zimmerman guy did,,what hunters do,,, They are different motivations

I personally wouldn't invite this guy to dinner......even though what he did was not illegal,,,just mentally distorted.

Hey but thats pennsylvania for ya.:razz:


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> I'm not eating Rin Tin Tin


Has nothing to do with consumption. If a shotgun or rifle can't put a dog down "humanely" at point-blank range, then it can't put a deer, turkey, coyote or anything else down humanely at a greater distance.



Pete said:


> Even I recognize the difference between killing an animal thats had the privalidge of being loved by an individual compared to one thats not.


So the prerequisite is "being loved by an individual"? Lots of people love deer, guess we can't shoot them either.



Pete said:


> It a little wierd to go around killing pets,,,,


For many people it's no more weird than raising, feeding or caring for livestock and then killing it for consumption.




Pete said:


> I can certainly discern the difference between what this zimmerman guy did,,what hunters do,,, They are different motivations


Try telling that to an anti-hunter.

*********************

Rest assured, I'm not defending the actions of these guys. Of course there's a difference between killing domestic animals, wild animals and livestock, but couch your arguments carefully and avoid using words like "innocent" "love" and other emotions or human values that shouldn't be attached to the situation lest you fall into the same rhetoric the antis use.


----------



## dreamer2385 (Jan 21, 2007)

I live in PA, I really think the laws should be changed. I have neighbors who will kill a stray and brag about it. I think it is a shame. The game laws will allow shooting of a dog running a deer. How strange. I think my PA lawmaker will be getting a well-thought out letter from me. Maria Bianco


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

I guess my problem with this story is that these dogs weren't euthanized at all. To quote from the definition posted. 



SloppyMouth said:


> dictionary.com, euthanasia:
> 
> 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
> 2. painless death.


When I think of euthanizing an animal it is to put them down to end their suffering like the dog who had been attacked by a bear. If one of my dogs were hit by a car and was clearly dying a painful death, and if I knew we couldn't make it to a vet in time I would chose to euthanize him using a gun and feel at peace about the decision; but shooting 80 healthy dogs for no reason other than convenience is murder in my mind.

People shouldn't be allowed to clean up their messes that way without suffering penalties. These dogs weren't euthanized at all. They were absolutely murdered. Have any of you been shot in the head? Is it painless? Maybe compared to the suffering of an injured animal it is, but for a healthy, alert animal it must have been terrifying. How many had to be shot more than once?

JMO


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Sloppy,

I understand your points.

I also think that if there was a more effective way for me to harvest game, eliminate varmits and kill my livestock for food I would find it.
There is a more effective way to end the life of a companion animal (my opinion) So if I have anything to say about it, any campanion animals that I'm dealing with will be euthanized by a Vet.

That's it, I'm out of this one.

John


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Page said:


> I guess my problem with this story is that these dogs weren't euthanized at all. To quote from the definition posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Page,
I never thought it would happen, but we disagree on this one. (1) If you can murder a dog, then you can murder a duck. If you can murder a duck, we can't hunt or play retriever games any more. Which is it? Is it OK for someone to use a rifle to kill a deer? What if he uses the same rifle to kill a beef steer that he plans to butcher? What if he uses it to kill his dog? Is there a difference?
(2) Are dogs property? If not, who determines the fate of your dogs? If your dog gets seriously sick or injured, do you feel that a government entity should decide for you if, when and how you euthanize your dog? If you think that you should control the fate of your animals, how can you think that others should be denied the same? We need to be very careful when we call for regulation and legislation about issues that affect us emotionally. Sometimes we seriously infringe the freedom and liberty of the many in an attempt to stop the perceived abuses of the few.
One man's opinion


----------



## goldust (May 12, 2005)

Unfortunately these were not companion dogs. They were livestock - plain and simple.

I hate that they died this way, but at least there are now out of that hell hole and romping over the Rainbow Bridge. Being taken care of and finding new, caring homes would have been better, but at least they are out of their misery. 

Such a sad situation


----------



## ghak99 (Jun 1, 2007)

I'll throw some gas on the fire.

It appears several here can't accept the fact that these dogs were not companion animals. They were livestock and property.......and being governed by the laws that pertain to them. Whether you and I realize it or not economic decisions involving the life of production animals are being made every single day. 

Using terms like "murder" when talking about any animal is a slippery slope I would think no dog owner or hunter should advocate. The other side will not distinguish between animals if we give them the ability to apply this term to a human taking the life of an animal.

Evidently he broke no laws.........So who am I to step in and tell him how to live?




.........Unless I miss I'm off to humanely euthanize a flyer for the dogs.;-)


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If someone is legally able to off a sick animal with a .22, what will they do when their grandfather gets gravely ill? 30-06?


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

No, because grandpa is not property. We can't have it both ways. Either a bullet is humane, or it isn't. Doesn't matter what it is used on, livestock (which these dogs were, their treatment is governed by the USDA), wild critters, or fowl. Funny how no one here is crying "foul" over crippling a duck or goose, just as long as it doesn't get away! What makes one creature better than the next? Place in line on the food chain? What the creature looks like (hard to shoot a soft furry baby critter when its staring up at you). The same people on here posting that they would NEVER shoot a dog will go out on a weekend to pop a few rounds into a coyote with his buddies, he may even take delight in the kill, laughing at how he really "put a hole in that one". 
It's all about the emotional attachment that we feel toward our own dogs that makes this seem abhorrent to us. We read about this incident and look at our dog laying peacefully at our feet, dreaming about chasing those ducks and shudder at the thought of someone pulling a trigger on our dog. We aren't taking in consideration that this was a commercial enterprise much like a confinement hog operation. There is no room for emotional attachment, and how could they? They had 80 animals that required feeding, watering, and breeding to make a profit. That's it. Animals do not require any thing more than that to live. (note I stated live, not thrive). 
While I personally do not like what they did, they did not do anything against the law. If we change the law to make it illegal for people to humanely put a dog down with a gun, the next step for PETA to make hunting illegal will be a small one. Plus, what happens when you have to take matters in your own hands in an emergency situation (horse breaks down on trail ride out in the middle of no where/hard place to move animal from). Are you willing to have to watch it suffer while someone rides/hikes back to town and looks for a vet that is willing to come out and put it down? Or are you going to hope that no one notices the neat little hole in the horse's skull because you couldn't stand watching him thrash around in agony, further injuring himself? Better hope that no one turns you in for "cruelty" because you had a heart. 
Sorry about the long winded response, I had to make it a good one since it makes my 100th post.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Sloppymouth
Who do you know has a pet deer


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Pete said:


> Sloppymouth
> Who do you know has a pet deer


The crazy-ass gal in northern California who a couple of years ago was jailed for feeding the deer in her area; claimed they were her pet, her "children," and she could feed them if she wanted.

Bunny-huggers claim to love animals and therefore we shouldn't hunt them. As has been said, we can't have it both ways. 

Oh yeah, my buddy had a "pet" deer that came by his stand every night. Pretty doe. I shot it.  It died humanely by hunting standards, although there are many who would probably disagree with that statement...and therein lies one of the problems with bringing individual morality into the equation. What's humane and proper for you, may not be for me and vice-versa...and when it comes down to a public vote and anti-hunters show a "supposedly humane" animal that has been shot kicking and dying, you'll lose the argument every time.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

So sloppymouth

what you are saying is that if you owned a piece of property and a cat was wondering through,,,,,(you know they kill alot of young wild birds) ,,,,,and it killed some of your chickens
And you new it was the little girls cat next door,,,,,you would shoot it the same as you would a ferral cat.

Personally I would ask the parents to not let their cat kill anymore chickens on my property because the next time I may not be so understanding,,,,,as compared to a ferral cat that I would immediately eradicate.

Thats the difference ,,,and while you are unable to discern between the 2 motivations I am not. They are black and white to me.


I also love deer but in a different way... I love to watch them ,,,but I also enjoy hunting them ,,,is that twisted or what.

Oh by the way,,,,I wouldn't shoot a deer that I've been watching everyday because there is some type of attachment mentally to it,,,,but I could care less if I don't see it anymore after the hunting season.

So some people are more discriminate than others.
Pete


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Pete said:


> So sloppymouth
> 
> what you are saying is that if you owned a piece of property and a cat was wondering through,,,,,(you know they kill alot of young wild birds) ,,,,,and it killed some of your chickens
> And you new it was the little girls cat next door,,,,,you would shoot it the same as you would a ferral cat.
> ...


Nope. What I'm saying is exactly what firehouselabs is saying. You can't call foul for killing dogs with a rifle, shotgun, ect because it's not humane, based upon your paradigm, your belief system, your culture; yet claim that killing deer, ducks, coyotes, etc at a greater distance with the same weapon is humane.

You start playing that game and bringing personal morality, paradigms, religion, etc into the argument and you're playing into the hands of the anti-hunters. You can't win; nobody can win (unless, of course, it's part of the legislative process, in which case you will probably lose). And while I (we, as a hunting fraternity) may see and understand your point, you'll lose the war of words with the antis when the debate boils down to emotions (yours, theirs, ours, et al) and video is shown, we (hunters, fishermen, trappers) lose out because the vast majority of the general public, while they're not opposed to hunting, are opposed to inhumane treatment of animals and when an anti-hunting organization puts a video of a coyote, deer, duck, turkey, etc being shot and crippled or going through the process of dying, the general public will fall on that side of the agrument because emotions take over (e.g., HSUS videos used in Washington state anti-trapping initiative as just one example). 

While our dogs are special to us, we can't resort to using words like "murder" and "innocent," words that relagate the subject to emotions, personal belief systems and ideas created by and followed by the morality and concepts of mankind (those that animals don't follow; e.g., one dog kills another dog, it's not considered murder—murder is a human concept).



Pete said:


> you are unable to discern between the 2 motivations I am not.


I am able to discern between the two (I'm playing some Devil's Advocate here); but many people can't (read: many voters and all animal-rights/anti-hunting followers) and when we use "murder" "innocent" etc we undermine ourselves and give credence to the anti-hunting movement.

SM

PS. I'd ask the kid's parents to help keep the cat in the house or under some other control as its actions were starting to bite into my pocketbook. If they failed to do so, well kitty-kat would probably not make it home one day.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Hookset said:


> Page,
> I never thought it would happen, but we disagree on this one. (1) If you can murder a dog, then you can murder a duck. If you can murder a duck, we can't hunt or play retriever games any more. Which is it? Is it OK for someone to use a rifle to kill a deer? What if he uses the same rifle to kill a beef steer that he plans to butcher? What if he uses it to kill his dog? Is there a difference?
> (2) Are dogs property? If not, who determines the fate of your dogs? If your dog gets seriously sick or injured, do you feel that a government entity should decide for you if, when and how you euthanize your dog? If you think that you should control the fate of your animals, how can you think that others should be denied the same? We need to be very careful when we call for regulation and legislation about issues that affect us emotionally. Sometimes we seriously infringe the freedom and liberty of the many in an attempt to stop the perceived abuses of the few.
> One man's opinion


LOL....oopsie, then let me expand on my reasoning. I think I worded my post incorrectly in my haste anyway. The dogs weren't murdered the way a person would be....and no, I don't think you can murder a duck or a deer. 

My problem with the story is claiming that they were _euthanized _which makes it sound like they were put out of their misery when they were just flat out killed out of convenience. I was posting that there is a difference. 

My comment about facing penalties has nothing to do with the govt deciding how we should euthanize our animals but this is a case where the local govt had already commanded the men to get vet checks on these dogs or surrender them. In this case the local govt was already involved due to the horrible living conditions of these animals. This is a special circumstance (in my mind) in which I don't think they should have been allowed to clean up their mess with a shotgun. If given an order to get the animals checked or surrender them, I feel they should have done one or the other. My problem was less about a man euthanizing his dog with a gun and more about a man being reported to the authorities for the condition of his animals and rather than complying with the order he just got trigger happy to fix his predicament. 

Maybe I've seen Animal Cops too many times but some of these puppy mill kennels do border on animal cruelty by just their everyday living conditions. I don't believe that merely because a dog is property that it can be kept in those kinds of conditions and for these guys to kill them rather than handing them over really does amaze me.

Plus....I am female and a dog lover so maybe I'm a bit soft on this topic. If I saw this man kill 80 healthy dogs my stomach would turn. Property or not....it's just not right. (in my opinion) It may be legal, but legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Sad situation all around because I'd hate to see the shelters overrun with these dogs too.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

...and here's what I really meant to say by the murder comment. 

Not murder as in ending a human life or something to be put in jail for, but I meant a cold-hearted and unnecessary act as opposed to the euthanasia these guys claimed to have committed.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> A .22 can go straight thru and not kill. Had an older farmer friend once decide to "euthanize" his old cocker that way and he's haunted forever by her stare back at him when it didn't kill her.


I also know someone who had a similar nightmarish experience attempting to kill a family dog. It wasn't quick or painless, and his kids saw it.

To me, humane euthanasia implies quick and minimal pain. Out of 80 dogs, I seriously doubt that every single one was quick and clean.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Just touching back on the religious point for a second. IF they are Mennonite or Amish (and I don't know that these particular people are though weirdly the Amish etc. seem neck deep in puppy mills) you would think that they would be reprimanded by their church for the absolute unbelievable WASTE, just as they would if they went out and shot a herd of cattle. I believe that dogs are property, and I think these dogs were livestock. 

If they want to write legislation in Pennsylvania (or anywhere) it should be that you cannot kill certain animals (dogs, cats, horses, parrots etc) with a gun except under extraordinary circumstances, defined as blah, blah, blah. (I included horses in there intentionally as it is remarkably difficult to shoot a horse and kill it-- and in Montana there are plenty of godawful stories of people who botched the job.) 

Unfortunately whatever legislation comes will be too late for the Zimmermans, but , God willing, their punishment will come later and last longer.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

_



dictionary.com, euthanasia:

1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.

Click to expand...

__Page look at the 2nd definition of euthanasia. I think it fits what the farmers did in this case._


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Howard N said:


> _Page look at the 2nd definition of euthanasia. I think it fits what the farmers did in this case._


I'm sorry but I don't agree with you there. 

While I don't have a problem with hunting you can't tell me it's a painless death to be shot like that. I have seen the old Faces of Death videos that showed animals being shot at close range, and a show on HBO showing horses and cattle being shot. Many times they died fighting and screaming and had to be shot more than once, or twice, or even three times. 

I'm sorry but I don't believe that this horrific act can ever be classified as euthanasia. These shootings may very well have been painless for the ones holding the shotgun, but many of the dogs no doubt suffered.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Please understand that I don't condone or agree with the actions of those guys. I'm such a softy when it comes to this stuff that I can't even watch Animal Cops on TV because it either breaks my heart or fills me with homicidal tendencies (or both). 
I'm just very leary of the idea that more regulation by government at any level is the solution to these kind of issues. It's just too easy to let emotion take us down a rough road.

Page,
I thought for a minute that it might be over between us, but I think there may be hope.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I have some doubt that the animals were in that great of shape otherwise to the owner they would have had some value. Likely the condition of them was poor enough that the loss of the sale price of these dogs was much less than the fines were likely to be. I dont see anywhere that the guy was giddy with pleasure shooting the dogs because they were his source of income. If this story was about some other less attractive farm animal it may not have even made the local paper but because it was mans best friend it a different story.

I also worry about using the human way of killing animals as a way of the PITA folks taking away our hunting rights as well as meat on my table. 

Also I hope that hunters enjoy killing in a sporting and dignified way. Yes I will be one of the guys that a nice group of duck or geese come in and we shoot and kill some cheer with joy. I enjoy the hunt and the meat it provided. 

The guy was not a good steward of the animals he was caring for. He was responsible for the health and well being for them. I see the dogs that goes to the local rescue and the mental and physical state they are in is sickening. Often times the best and most humane thing to do is put them down.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Larkin said:


> If they want to write legislation in Pennsylvania (or anywhere) it should be that you cannot kill certain animals (dogs, cats, horses, parrots etc) with a gun except under extraordinary circumstances, defined as blah, blah, blah. (I included horses in there intentionally as it is remarkably difficult to shoot a horse and kill it-- and in Montana there are plenty of godawful stories of people who botched the job.)


Now there's a can of worms to open. Who gets to decide which animals get to die at the discharged end of a gun? You? Me? Legislatures? Animal-rightists? Humane Societies? THE Humane Society of the United States?

And which animals? Domesticated animals? Does that include cattle, hogs and other livestock? How do you define 'livestock'? In this instance the dogs were no more than livestock. Or is it only the cute ones? Or only the ones we eat? 



Page said:


> I'm sorry but I don't agree with you there.
> 
> While I don't have a problem with hunting you can't tell me it's a painless death to be shot like that. I have seen the old Faces of Death videos that showed animals being shot at close range, and a show on HBO showing horses and cattle being shot. Many times they died fighting and screaming and had to be shot more than once, or twice, or even three times.
> 
> I'm sorry but I don't believe that this horrific act can ever be classified as euthanasia. These shootings may very well have been painless for the ones holding the shotgun, but many of the dogs no doubt suffered.


So you don't have a problem with killing a "cute" "innocent" deer with a rifle, that many many hunters take unethical shots and wound an animal that takes days to die, but you do have a problem with someone shooting a dog a close range and that dies, even if it takes several shots, in moments?

It could definitely be classified as euthanasia if the alternative is to starve to death in a cage or slowly die of gum disease or some other close-quarter, poor-living-condition malady.



Hookset said:


> Please understand that I don't condone or agree with the actions of those guys. I'm such a softy when it comes to this stuff that I can't even watch Animal Cops on TV because it either breaks my heart or fills me with homicidal tendencies (or both).
> 
> I'm just very leary of the idea that more regulation by government at any level is the solution to these kind of issues. It's just too easy to let emotion take us down a rough road.


AMEN! DITTO on all counts.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

So the real question is how do you put guys like him out of business without infringing on the rights of the rest of us who do this as a hobby, vocation, whatever.

If we have to put up with a few guys like him in order for the rest of us to do what we do then screw him and forget him. Charge him with whatever laws he violated, the frigging AKC could do something if they wanted to, but don't pass a bunch of knee jerk regulations that put us all out of business for good.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

SloppyMouth said:


> So you don't have a problem with killing a "cute" "innocent" deer with a rifle, that many many hunters take unethical shots and wound an animal that takes days to die, but you do have a problem with someone shooting a dog a close range and that dies, even if it takes several shots, in moments?


I have no problem with hunting, but hunting and the euthanization of domestic animals are two seperate things. 

Hunting is not a mercy killing or painless. It is a seperate deal entirely.

Killing these dogs was not painless and was not a mercy killing because the article clearly stated that more than half weren't even required to get vet checks and that 70 of the 80 were adoptable. 

Although many of you know from my previous posts that I am not a huge fan of the mainstream media or big govt, it appears from the report that only 10 were not adoptable and less than half were ordered to have their health checked by the authorities so at least half of them looked to be in good health. 


> It could definitely be classified as euthanasia if the alternative is to starve to death in a cage or slowly die of gum disease or some other close-quarter, poor-living-condition malady.


If that were the case I would agree with you. THAT scenario fits the euthanasia case, but more than half appeared healthy enough to forgo vet checks and at least 70 of them looking like they could be placed in homes goes against your statement. 

While I do not agree with crazy dog regulations limiting numbers or breeding, I do believe in minimum standards for upkeep on livestock, property, whatever you choose to call them. When told by the warden to go to the vet or surrender their animals they just decided to kill their healthy dogs. They were given a door 1 or door 2 option after they broke their local law regarding the standard of upkeep for livestock. Both options would have guaranteed the survival of at least 80% of those animals. This is what makes me furious about the story. Illegal, no. Wrong, yes. 

Sorry....but no one is convincing me that this was acceptable, right or euthanasia. It doesn't fit the definition at all. This was killing for the convenience of the puppymillers. Why not just take them to the vet? 



> Page,
> I thought for a minute that it might be over between us, but I think there may be hope.


Yippee! ;-)


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> They were given a door 1 or door 2 option after they broke their local law regarding the standard of upkeep for livestock.


Did they break the law?


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Howard N said:


> Did they break the law?


They would have had to have broken a law or ordinance in their area which fostered a complaint in the first place that allowed the wardens to be on their property and issue these violations for living conditions. 

Killing their property wasn't against the law and I'm not saying it should be, but they had to have broken several ordinances to receive several violations in the first place. 

Calling what they did euthanasia is what I have the biggest problem with. Call it what it was...senseless killing to clean up their mess. Legally OK but morally inexcusable.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> They would have had to have broken a law or ordinance in their area which fostered a complaint in the first place that allowed the wardens to be on their property and issue these violations for living conditions.


OK, I wasn't sure if being issued a violation (whatever that is) by the state dog warden was proof of breaking the law.

I thought anyone could complain and if someone looked hard enough they could find a violation of some sort. I don't have a clue what happened here or if it would have held up in court. We're just reading a reporter's story and I do not trust reporters to get it right.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Howard N said:


> We're just reading a reporter's story and I do not trust reporters to get it right.


LOL....I am with you in that boat!! ;-)


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

_Now there's a can of worms to open. Who gets to decide which animals get to die at the discharged end of a gun? You? Me? Legislatures? Animal-rightists? Humane Societies? THE Humane Society of the United States?

And which animals? Domesticated animals? Does that include cattle, hogs and other livestock? How do you define 'livestock'? In this instance the dogs were no more than livestock. Or is it only the cute ones? Or only the ones we eat? _

Oh Sloppy, that's not so hard. YOU CAN'T SHOOT COMPANION ANIMALS. While these dogs were treated as "livestock," in this country dogs are not considered food animals. Nor are cats, parrots, guinea pigs, or horses etc. (Which is why the ill-thought out horse slaughter bill passed.) GAME can still be shot. VERMIN can be shot. LIVESTOCK can be shot, though with the exception of the captive bolt, this is not the usual method of dispatching livestock. And of course, it is a state legislature that would take on the job of writing law. That's the way our government works. 

One has to wonder if some don't take certain positions in order to be obstreperous.

Writ large regards. :razz:


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Larkin,
Is a pot-bellied pig a companion animal or livestock? What about a miniature horse? Domestic ducks used for dog training? Domestic ducks raised for consumption? Domestic ducks used as ornaments in your pond? All the same? Different? How? Who decides?


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Matt . . .
Pot bellied pigs are companions. We don't eat them in this country.

Miniature horses (like all horses) are companions. We don't eat them in this country.

Domestic ducks (regardless if for meat or dog training or ornamentation) are poultry (i.e. livestock) because We Eat Them in This Country and They Are Delicious.

When you consider how carefully regulated is the taking of game, making distinctions about companion animals is not exactly rocket science. And of course it is your elected representatives that decide. 

Robert Goddard regards,


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Larkin said:


> Matt . . .
> Pot bellied pigs are companions. We don't eat them in this country.
> 
> Miniature horses (like all horses) are companions. We don't eat them in this country.
> ...


Whoops. This would have been good info to have before lunch.

/Paul


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Whoops. This would have been good info to have before lunch.
> 
> /Paul


LOL!!  Which one(s) did you have Paul? 

James Beard regards.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Whoops. This would have been good info to have before lunch.
> 
> /Paul


I can't believe there's not a ROFL smiley. This is where that would go.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Stupid ******* all you can eat buffet.....

/Paul


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Larkin,
Please help me understand how a horse requires a different death than a cow or how a parrot requires a different death than a chicken. Or how a pot-belly is really different than a Poland China. I'm no rocket surgeon, so please keep it simple for me.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

This is the problem with internet experts: Horses are most certainly considered livestock, not companion animals. Even if some people try to humanize them and convince us we should only be their guardians. If they were classified as companion animals or pets, there would be a load of very unhappy landowners whose horse farms can no longer be classified as farms, among other things.

It is and should be legal to shoot a horse or other farm animal if necessary. Around here it's an acceptable practice to have them put down (by shooting them) by the hunt clubs to be fed to the hounds. If you know how to do it a well placed gunshot drops them instantly where some injection deaths take up to an hour. I've seen both and to me the gunshot looks much more humane.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Matt,
I do believe you are being difficult for the sake of it.  These are cultural issues, not biological ones, which is why we are upset that they shot 80 dogs, but it would not have been a news story if they shot 80 snow geese. Indeed, I believe some people on this forum have shot 80 snow geese. 

Culturally we have deemed that it is acceptable to kill and eat some animals (most variety of swine, cattle --even baby cattle--, chickens etc.) We, as a culture, deem it appropriate to kill and eat game, though this meets with a wider variety of opinion, due in large part to Disney and the anthropomorphizing of these attractive animals. 

We do not, as a rule, eat our companions, (ie _pets_) and find it distressing when they meet bad ends, whether shot without skill, hit by a car, drown etc. The reason these animals require a different death is because we (as a society) have deemed it so. 

To the moon, Alice, regards.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> If someone is legally able to off a sick animal with a .22, what will they do when their grandfather gets gravely ill? 30-06?


You know, Bob, I seem to recall you departing controlled flight over a PETA comment that equated the rights of a dog with the same rights of a human.

Aren't you suggesting the very same thing in this post?

Clear It Up For Me Please Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Larkin,
I regret that my posts have given you the impression that I am being "difficult" for the sake of it. I thought we were having a civil conversation about a difference of opinion. If disagreeing with your opinion or asking for clarification makes me "difficult", then perhaps you and I should not continue this. I certainly don't want this to become some sort of hostile argument.
I suspect that you and I probably agree close to 100% on our feelings about killing "companion animals". We probably equally detest the actions of the yahoos who shot the 80 dogs. 
Where our roads part is our positions on how involved our elected officials should be in regulating our relationships with the animals that we own. I am instinctively distrustful of the judgement, motives and experience of most politicians (remember that in my neck of the woods, we elect people like Corinne Brown) and I certainly don't want to give them control of what I chose to do with my dogs, my horses or my cockatiel. You let our Congress or a state legislature come up with a law to determine which animals can be shot and which can't and stand by for an unholy mess that ends up screwing everyone. One man's opinion. Ifsomehow this is offensive or "difficult", please add me to your ignore list or simply disregard my posts.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I thought more recently that in the US we are now killing horses for food ?? Or are they exported ? Are they shipped live ? I guess it depends on where you live as to what animal is food.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Matt, I don't think we are having a disagreement, it just appeared that you were intentionally not seeing the forest for the trees. When this kind of story (80 dogs) breaks, the public demands some kind of reassurance that it can't happen again, or that people who behave this way can be punished. I foresee that laws will be enacted somewhat along the lines that I previously stated. If you want them to be good laws, contact the body making the law. Saying you don't want it doesn't prevent it from happening. State and federal officials already determine which animals can be shot. That's what hunting seasons are. 

Most horses in this country are companion animals. With the exception of the thoroughbred industry (in which an argument could be made that horses are entertainment rather than agriculture) horses are produced because people want to own one or a dozen for riding, driving, livestock management, pasture ornaments or whathaveyou. We don't eat horses in this country.

We also no longer slaughter them in this country, whether for pet food, human consumption or glue. Horses are instead trucked to Mexico and slaughtered there, and that meat is exported to Belgium, Japan etc. They actually raise (ie "farm") horses for human consumption in Europe. I understand the Haflinger pony is very popular for this purpose. 

Steve is absolutely correct about it depending on where you live as to what is considered food. In Asia, they consume dogs, which we find horrifying. In India, they would consider our practice of eating cows quite vile. We don't generally subscribe to the practice of eating horse meat, though I did eat some, once by mistake, in France when I was fifteen. This was at a time when I rode competitively (and had equine _companions_) and as soon as I found out what I'd eaten, it all came up again. Ugh. 

If you draw mental lines between a horse's ears and eyes across his forehead in an "X," and put the bullet in the crux of the "x" you can successfully kill him. (Their brains are quite small.) Plenty of cowboys miss the spot, and botch the job, and even when they don't, it's pretty dreadful. We've had conversations with our vet about this, and his stories would turn your stomach. We used lethal injection to put down two crippled TB stallions ten years ago, and an ancient Arab mare in 1996 and each death took less than ten minutes. The mare was already down, but the boys crumpled in a matter of seconds and were deeply sedated in less than a minute. 

I've only seen a horse shot once, by a woman who definitely knew what she was doing. The horse was a QH foal about two months old and it had been kicked hard by one of the mares, which not only broke its hind leg, but left it hanging by a shred. The foal was running in the pasture screaming. We had to help Sue corner the foal, who struggled the whole time. The closest vet was 40 miles away. It was quick and dreadful and I hope I never see another such thing. 

Finally, it's interesting that in most places they have discontinued death by firing squad as a form of execution. You'd think it would be a lot simpler than hanging or lethal injection, in terms of the necessary equipment and effectiveness.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

They stopped using a firing squad due to the trauma inflicted on the shooter, not the shootee (is that even a word?). Even when they were told that only x number of bullets were "live" and the rest were blanks, the guilt for taking a human life at such close range in an unprovoked manner was too much for them. The suicide rate for those executioners was quite high (ironically, with a gun in most cases). The really "good" ones were often thought of as having some kind of moral and mental unstability which caused them to actually enjoy their work.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Raina,
That's really interesting. I think "Shootee" is a great word and shall apply it to ducks this winter, LOL. Thanks for that insight into the demise of the firing squad.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

"I've only seen a horse shot once, by a woman who definitely knew what she was doing. The horse was a QH foal about two months old and it had been kicked hard by one of the mares, which not only broke its hind leg, but left it hanging by a shred. The foal was running in the pasture screaming. We had to help Sue corner the foal, who struggled the whole time. The closest vet was 40 miles away. It was quick and dreadful and I hope I never see another such thing. "

I sure am glad that there wasn't some law that stated that you had to load that foal up on a trailer and take it to a veterinarian to "humanely" kill it.
Those involved did the right thing and I'm glad that you are not criminals based on some misguided law put in place by politicians directed by inexperienced do-gooders or animal rights idiots. No pun intended, but I believe this has become a dead horse. I'll stop beating now.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Hookset said:


> "I've only seen a horse shot once, by a woman who definitely knew what she was doing. The horse was a QH foal about two months old and it had been kicked hard by one of the mares, which not only broke its hind leg, but left it hanging by a shred. The foal was running in the pasture screaming. We had to help Sue corner the foal, who struggled the whole time. The closest vet was 40 miles away. It was quick and dreadful and I hope I never see another such thing. "
> 
> I sure am glad that there wasn't some law that stated that you had to load that foal up on a trailer and take it to a veterinarian to "humanely" kill it.
> Those involved did the right thing and I'm glad that you are not criminals based on some misguided law put in place by politicians directed by inexperienced do-gooders or animal rights idiots. No pun intended, but I believe this has become a dead horse. I'll stop beating now.


Hookset beat me to it and said it much better than I would have. But when I read about euthanizing the foal I couldn't help but think of the ramifications of a law passed against putting an animal down with a gun. 

I wonder if they'd all be in jail in the wrong juristiction.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

I believe I said in the original post that legislation could be written allowing for exceptions in extraordinary circumstance, which the foal certainly was. If Sue had shot the foal through the rib cage, or the side of the head, that horror would have gone on and on.

On the whole I think Fish and Game has done a pretty fair job with wildlife management. It puzzles me that you think that legal guidelines that would prohibit individuals from shooting 80 dogs to death (particularly when it is done to evade prosecution on other charges) would be bad. If you have that little faith in your elected representatives, perhaps you ought to run for office yourself, or at least work to put someone in who better represents your interests. 

You are right about this topic being done to death. 

You want the last word, have it.... regards.


----------

