CROSSPOST...CROSSPOST......
Subject: More on Gas Chambers, FACTS and NUMBERS.
The Witness
By Jerry Elmore Layne (of Animals Have Hearts, Too!)
A personal transformation took over my life in 1988, when I was a
witness, through a small porthole window, of an animal shelter gas
chamber doing its savage business. Two of the employees began pulling
and tugging larger dogs toward the chamber -- this, in itself,
was savage. The eyes of the dogs were fullof fear as they were shoved
into a large cylinder with another six dogs, all types. Next, five
puppies were placed in the chamber. Noise. Yelling. Fighting. All
scared, they shivered again and again, their eyes huge, their
nostrils flaring. They were completely bewildered. One dog
in the chamber, a male chow mix about one year old, started snapping at
the puppies. All the dogs and puppies were in a desperate struggle, and
the gassing had yet to begin. Then a button was pushed, and the two
employees walked away as the chamber machine began pumping out streams
of carbon monoxide. The little puppies started to paw at the glass
window. After one full minute they started to whine and then produced a
piercing squeal. Then the largerdogs started a high, mournful wailing,
then a deeper howl that rose ingreat desperation for 45 seconds. That
morning of my witness, the time from inception of hell for thedogs and
puppies, to the completion of their cries of desperation, wasbetween
two and six minutes. As the employees walked away, I knew it was my
love, my honor, my devotion to animals that I must not blink and watch
every second, every animal struggle to avoid death. However, tears from
my heart did overwhelm me that tragic morning, and the final insult was
having toload the bodies of the dogs and puppies into a pickup truck
and haulthem to a local garbage dump.
Wide Disparity
Across the country, there is wide disparity among shelters and their methods and application of euthanasia. Problems stemming from inadequate training, insufficient funding, indifference to animal suffering, and failure to recognize the need to change and update procedures, are found everywhere, from small rural shelters to large city facilities. The urgent need for a consensus on humane euthanasia is graphically illustrated by the following recent cases: Rogers, AR. Lack of funding, lack of training, and lack of equipment were blamed for four years of "euthanizing" feral cats, skunk , raccoons, opossums, and other wild animals by drowning. Trapped animals were left in their cages and simply dropped into a plastic 55-gallon barrel (which was purchased for that purpose in 1996) filled with water.The shelter's employees were told by the director that drowning washumane and legal -- it's neither. No charges were filed, but the practice was stopped as soon as the mayor found out about it. The shelter now uses lethal injection.
Long Hill, NJ. A kennel owner admitted using an illegal drug to kill
more than 600 animals in 1998 and almost 300 in 1999. The powerful
muscle-relaxing drug, succinylcholine chloride, was banned in 1988 for
euthanasia in New Jersey. This drug essentially paralyzes the animal,
including the diaphragm and breathing muscles, but has no effect on
consciousness -- the terrified animal is fully aware that he cannot
breathe, and helplessly suffocates to death. Numerous other violations
were found by inspectors on several surprise visits, including failure
to hold animals for the required length of time before killing them,
and neglecting to provide veterinary care to a dog with a broken leg.
Additionally, more than 300 cats were killed by injections directly
into the heart -- which is not only stressful but acutely painful. The
kennel
owner was fined $18,715.
Vermilion Parish, LA. Animals are still euthanized by a regular
6-cylinder gasoline engine that pumps acrid exhaust gas into the small
room where they are confined. Even though the gas is pumped through
water to cool it a little, the fumes are still hot, irritating,
and painful. Their skin and eyes burning, the animals die slowly
and horribly. Animal protection groups have been trying since 1992 to
get the shelter to change to a more humane method of euthanasia,
but in spite of lawsuits and letters, the parish remains resistant to
voluntarily changing its ways.
Albuquerque, NM. An audit by the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) found many serious problems with the care of
animals at the two city shelters. The audit team was so alarmed at the
conditions that they issued a preliminary report blasting the
treatment of animals. HSUS representatives found that dogs were
killed by painful direct injections to the heart while conscious, a
practice that even the lenient AVMA guidelines condemns as inhumane.
Animals were restrained (and sometimes
lifted) with a "catch" or "control" pole (a long-handled pole with a
coated wire noose at one end that is placed around the animal's neck
and tightened), allegedly to prevent injury to staff members. However,
the audit team concluded that it was more likely due to lack of
training, as well as an apparent lack of concern for the comfort,
anxiety, and needs of the animals being euthanized. The report states,
"The HSUS did not witness any instance where an animal was held or
comforted for a gentle death." Worst of all, the HSUS team found
that seven animals were still alive (their hearts were beating) after
they were placed in the freezer. The Albuquerque shelters euthanize
about 18,000 animals annually -- 75% of the animals that come through
their doors. (For comparison, San Francisco's euthanasia rate is about
17%.) Sacramento, CA. As it had in Albuquerque, word got out about the
poor conditions at the Sacramento City animal shelter. The HSUS was
brought in to assess the shelter and make recommendations.
Consultants found "most staff displaying a lack of concern for an
animal's anxiety level, pain response, and overall well-being," as well
as an obvious
lack of training. Supervision was extremely poor in many areas. Shelter
personnel never scanned animals for microchips before killing them,
refused to use tranquilizers for fractious animals (relying instead on
brute physical force to restrain them), killed dogs in full view of
live dogs awaiting euthanasia, and committed many other violations of
shelter policy. A chloroform chamber used to kill small animals was
used improperly. A live newborn kitten was put into the chamber with
six dead
kittens who had been killed the day before. The following day, a live
pigeon was placed in the chamber with the seven dead kittens. An HSUS
team member finally asked a supervisor to check the chamber, at which
time he removed the dead animals -- four days after the first six
kittens died in it. Unlike Albuquerque, however, Sacramento immediately
began to remedy the deficits, and has made an effort to be responsive
to the report findings as well as to the concerned citizens in the
community.
Not all the news is bad, of course. At least one community has had a major wake-up call. In Greensboro, NC, frustrated Sheriff BJ Barnes, upset at learning that more than 75% of the animals entering his shelter were being killed, decided to televise the euthanasia of a dog on his weekly show. Viewers were shocked, but they also got the message: animal overpopulation is everyone's problem. Adoptions from the local shelter skyrocketed, and local veterinarians reported an increase in inquiries about spaying and neutering. And cities like San Francisco, where municipal animal control and the SPCA are working together to make sure that every adoptable animal gets a good chance for a home, have set a wonderful example for other agencies
From: "Little Dog Angel 2" <fdevynck@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:51:05 -0600
Subject: [AnimalShelterReform] Utah Fighting use of Gas Chambers:
What do the Animal Welfare Organizations and Veterinarians Say?
Thank you Barbara and Jodee,
cc: Lte. Bob Conner, Lte. Mike Morgan
As we can see below, many rural communities are trying to stop the
stressful process of the gassing of animals whether in the best gas
chambers that still force attendants to put up to 8 dogs on top of each
other as they are wheeled around the shelter collecting them, and then
wheeled into the gas chamber room; as the Utah County Mayors, myself
and animal control officers witnessed at the Utah County Animal Shelter
4 yrs ago when Lte. Morgan arranged for the Animal Task Committee to
compare Gas Chamber euthanization with the Humane and Stressless
Euthanization by Injection and held individually by the employees of
the Salt Lake County Animal Shelter. HOpefully we can educate the
decision makers here in Utah County with all the findings to date about
the reason why the Humane Society of the United States and the American
Humane Association feel that Gas Chambers are not humane. We are
awaiting a report, from a Utah Veterinarian that worked for years in
From Animal Issues, Volume 32 Number 2, Summer 2001
Euthanasia and the Animal Shelter
By Jean Hofve, DVM
More than 12 million cats and dogs enter U.S. shelters annually, an
endless tide of incoming animals. Few of these animals will be
reclaimed, and many shelters lack space to keep even most adoptable
animals. Of lost cats that end up in shelters, only 2% will be returned
to their homes. Dogs have it better, because they are more likely to be
wearing rabies or identification tags, but even so only 16% will
be reclaimed. On average, only about 1/3 of animals put up for
adoption at shelters will actually find homes. For the
rest, euthanasia. "Euthanasia" literally means "good death," and
is usually interpreted to mean a quick, painless, and humane method of
dying. It seems
self-evident that death should also be in the best interests of the
animal. The decision to euthanize a sick, dangerous, or otherwise
unadoptable animal is relatively uncomplicated to make. However,
millions of healthy, friendly animals also end up in shelters. They are
adoptable -- but there are just not enough homes available for all of
them. It is the task of shelters to select those who will be placed in
the adoption kennels. Animals who have been in the adoption kennel too
long, and all the rest who never had the chance, are taken to the
euthanasia room.
Methods
The euthanasia method of choice for use in animal shelters is the
injection of an overdose of a barbiturate anesthetic called
sodium pentobarbital. In API's view, it is the only
acceptable method of euthanizing shelter animals. When injected
into a vein, this drug produces rapid unconsciousness and death without
the pain and distress that accompany all other methods. For cats,
kittens, puppies, and other small mammals, a direct injection
into the abdominal cavity is also acceptable, though not as rapid or
reliable as the intravenous route. This method is the most
cost-effective and overall least expensive of all euthanasia techniques
(according to the Michigan Humane Society, the cost of lethal
injection, materials and labor is $2.88 per animal). It does require
adequate staff training, and because each animal is handled
individually, it is somewhat more emotionally taxing to workers than
mass euthanasia methods. The injection process allows shelter staff to
provide personal comfort to each animal in its last moments, which may
greatly offset the emotional stress. Five states (CA, FL, ME, OR, PA)
specify lethal injection (usually of a barbiturate) as the only
allowable method of euthanasia, and similar laws are currently being
considered in Tennessee and Rhode Island. About 20 states specifically
allow lethal injection. Shelters employ a number of other "euthanasia"
methods. One common method is the gas chamber. Either carbon monoxide
(CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2) is generally used, though some still use
nitrogen gas. California banned the use of CO gas chambers for
euthanasia effective January 1, 2001. Many injection givers initially
resisted the change, because injection requires two workers and
extended physical contact with the animal, but once they understood the
process, they realized it is better for the animal, and actually less
stressful for them. For some animals, the gentle touch of a shelter
worker during the euthanasia process may be the only real affection
they have ever had. The lethal injection technique allows the worker to
comfort the animal and experience closure of the death process. Three
states (AZ, SC, TN) specifically allow nitrogen gas, and three (OK, SC,
TN) allow carbon monoxide; all of these states also allow lethal
injection, with gas as an alternate method. Gas chambers have many
limitations which make the method less practical, slower, more
dangerous to staff (a shelter worker died of CO poisoning just last
year), and ultimately more expensive than lethal injection. Abuse of
the chamber is common. While shelter policies commonly require physical
separation in individual cages and close observation of the process, in
many cases animals are simply shoved into the chamber, the door sealed,
the button pushed, and the employee walks away. The sponsor of the bill
in Tennessee that would mandate lethal injection said of the gas
chamber that it "results in a slow, painful death." Ronald R. Grier and
Tom L. Colvin's 1990 Euthanasia Guide for Animal Shelters recommends
that all animals should be tranquilized before placement in the chamber
-- something that is virtually never done in practice. Three states
(DE, OK, TN) allow chloroform for animals under 8 weeks of age (young
animals up to 4 months old are resistant to gas euthanasia). Eleven
states defer to a higher authority, such as the AmericanVeterinary
Medical Association (AVMA), the state veterinary board (OH), or the
state veterinarian (VA), or provide standards for humane death (IA, NH,
ND, RI, SC, WA). One state (SC) allows shooting (in emergencies). Only
one state (AZ) allows the use of T-61, a drug that is considered
unacceptable by AVMA because it immobilizes and suffocates
the animal without causing unconsciousness, resulting in pain and
distress. Twenty-five states have banned the use of "high altitude"
decompression chambers, which were used extensively in the 1950s and
1960s, but were subsequently deemed to be cruel. The Report of the AVMA
Panel on Euthanasia is used as a reference by hundreds of shelters
around the country, and four states (GA, KS, MO, NY) mandate using only
methods considered acceptable in this report. The report was revised in
2000; unfortunately, the updated version has significant problems, but
nevertheless was passed and published by the AVMA, primarily through
the force of will of a single individual who ramrodded it through --
over the reservations of the committee that produced it, as well as the
unanimous disapproval of the organization's main governing body. The
report fails to address the inappropriateness of CO for animals under
16 weeks of age, and sick, pregnant, injured, or old animals. In spite
of the report's own statement that CO2 "may be distressing" especially
to cats, it is included as an acceptable method of feline euthanasia.
Suffocating birds by pressing on their chests is
referred to as "apparently painless." Kill-traps, which rarely function
properly even under controlled laboratory conditions and are
indiscriminate killers of any animal that gets caught in them, are
promoted as "practical and effective" for wildlife. And electrocution
is considered "conditionally acceptable" for dogs.
Wide Disparity Across the country, there is wide disparity among
shelters and their methods and application of euthanasia. Problems
stemming from inadequate training, insufficient funding, indifference
to animal suffering, and failure to recognize the need to change and
update procedures, are found everywhere, from small rural shelters to
large city facilities. The urgent need for a consensus on humane
euthanasia is graphically illustrated by the following recent cases:
Rogers, AR. Lack of funding, lack of training, and lack of equipment
were blamed for four years of "euthanizing" feral cats, skunks,
raccoons, opossums, and other wild animals by drowning. Trapped
animalswere left in their cages and simply dropped into a plastic
55-gallon barrel (which was purchased for that purpose in 1996) filled
with water. The shelter's employees were told by the director that
drowning was humane and legal -- it's neither. No charges were filed,
but the practice was stopped as soon as the mayor found out about it.
Theshelter now uses lethal injection.
The Last Stop
The local shelter is too often the last stop for a dog or cat. Shelters
have been put into this unenviable position by the irresponsible
breeding of far too many animals. Puppy mills, pet stores, backyard
breeders, "responsible" hobby and show breeders, people who simply
won't, don't bother, or "forget" to have their animals spayed or
neutered, pet food companies who subsidize breeders with free samples
and discount coupons, and the cat and dog breed "clubs" that
encourage breeding -- all contribute to this massive problem. It
is a sad fact that, when a human being chooses to create a relationship
with another living being, then fails to live up to the
responsibilities that go with that relationship, we allow the human to
walk away guilt-free -- it is always the animal who pays 100% of the
price for the human's errors.
We often hear "responsible" breeders complain that the real problem is
the irresponsible owners, backyard breeders, and puppy mills. And
there's no doubt that those are huge problems. Puppy mills around the
country contribute thousands of puppies to pet overpopulation
every year. According to a 1999 issue of the Pet Products News
Buying Guide, a pet store trade publication, "Livestock sales of dogs
rose a healthy 35.6 percent in 1998." Sales generated from these
puppies shot to $33.6 million in 1998, compared to $15.2 million in
1996. But let's take a closer look at those "responsible" breeders.
They generally advertise in a few well-known national magazines, or on
their own websites. In one issue of one cat magazine there are
individual listings for about 700 breeders; and a similar number in a
comparable dog publication. If each of those breeders produces only
three litters per year (an extremely conservative estimate), with an
average of 6 per litter, those breeders are putting out more than
25,000 puppies and kittens per year. The American Kennel Club
registered nearly 1,175,500 puppies in 2000; the Cat Fanciers
Association registered about 107,000 kittens from 13,951 active
breeders. Whether they admit it or deny it, the truth is that each and
every person who -- accidentally or purposely -- produces even one more
puppy
or kitten is part of the problem. We all have to work together to solve
it -- nobody can be exempt. Until pet overpopulation is controlled,
8-10 million cats and dogs will be killed this year, and every year, in
U.S. shelters. (And this shocking figure doesn't include countless
thousands of animals who never make it to the shelter, but are
abandoned to live and die on the streets or in the country.) The good
news is that pet overpopulation is on the decline. However, projections
suggest it will be another twenty-five years before we end it; and
that's only possible with continued hard work, dedication, and public
education. We are making progress, but this is in spite of people who
continue to breed and industries that support breeding. If those who
are creating the problem would take full responsibility, we could reach
the ultimate goal -- to eliminate the euthanasia of healthy, adoptable
animals -- much faster. A shelter should be there to care for animals,
to relieve suffering -- not amplify or prolong it. An animal may have
already suffered greatly prior to ending up at a shelter, and the
unfamiliarity, confinement, and noise of the shelter environment is
extremely stressful in and of itself. Therefore, we have an obligation
to ensure that needless suffering is not that animal's tragic end to
life.
Special thanks to Jerry Elmore Layne and Nicole Paquette for
their extensive research and generous assistance.
The Human Toll
Shelter workers must daily confront the need to euthanize many healthy,
friendly, adoptable animals. They must accept these animals from the
public, listen to the flimsy excuses for relinquishment ("I'm moving,"
"I got new furniture," "My boyfriend doesn't like him"), smile
politely, and swallow the words that they must so often want to shout
-- "Thisanimal trusts you! This animal loves you! You have a
responsibility here! How can you abandon him?" Having accepted these
unwanted animals,shelter workers must feed, brush, walk, care for, and
get to know them for three or five or seven days, and then, except for
those few that have been adopted, they must take them into a small,
barren room and kill them. How do shelter workers cope with their
duties that, on one hand, require them to care deeply for the animals
they work with, yet on the
other hand, require them to release that attachment when the animal is
either adopted or euthanized? Research has shown that new shelter
workers tend to become very
attached to certain animals, whose subsequent death was terribly
distressing. Over time, workers learn to keep a certain impersonal
distance between themselves and the animals, seeing them as more of "a
population of refugees" than as individuals, as pets. Those who are
responsible for euthanasia concentrated on the mechanics of the act,
becoming proficient at killing so that they can gain some satisfaction
for making the death as quick and painless as possible. They may
compensate by becoming more involved in foster programs, education
about spay/neuter, or other means of increasing adoptions and reducing
the numbers of incoming animals. They must all make a special effort to
control their feelings of frustration, anger, and hostility in order to
interact appropriately with co-workers and the public. Shelter workers
also learn to see euthanasia as a means of preventing suffering. Death
becomes a better alternative than other fates that could befall the
animals -- starving to death, contracting a seriousdisease, or being
abandoned, injured, predated upon, poisoned, sold to a research lab,
abused in an unhappy home, or used as target practice or as bait for
fighting dogs. Understandably, shelter workers sometimes transfer their
frustration and anger onto the people who brought the animals in, and
blame them as the ones who behaved wrongly or immorally toward the
animals. They see the public as "the enemy." One shelter worker said,
"People think we are murderers, but they are the ones that have put us
in this position." And certainly much of the problem does lie with the
throwaway attitude of society, the irresponsible people who fail to
spay and neuter, who let
their animals run loose. This attitude does not necessarily make it
easy for animals to be adopted out, as some shelter workers see all
people in the same tainted light, and they have trouble trusting
potential adopters. One thing shelter workers should not do is to
separate themselves so much from the euthanasia act that they become
apathetic. Carter Luke, a consultant with the Massachusetts SPCA, says,
"I don't consider uncaring people effective. If you become too
comfortable with euthanasia so that it doesn't affect you, you've lost
an edge. Because euthanasia is not an acceptable solution to pet
overpopulation. We should always see it as something we abhor, and wish
to get rid of or at least minimize. We should never become comfortable
with euthanasia." While shelter workers eventually learn to cope with
the stress of
euthanasia, they all experience uneasiness at certain times, or at a
low but constant level. Spring and summer -- when large numbers of
animals, especially kittens, come into the shelters -- are especially
difficult. "Some days we can be euthanizing all morning and you look at
the pile of animals that nobody wants and it hurts." But then they
remember the ones who lived, the ones who found wonderful homes.
It is sometimes a dirty job, but it does have its rewards.
---------------------------------
Kentucky Shelter Litigation
By Sheila Hughes Rodriguez
On July 10, 2000, API, In Defense of Animals, the Trixie
Foundation and 19 other Kentucky plaintiffs sued the Kentucky
Commissioner of Agriculture and 70 counties for failure to protect and
regulate dogs throughout the state (The Trixie Foundation, et al. v.
Billy Ray Smith, Commissioner, et al., No. 00CI-00792). The case is
best summarized in plaintiffs' pleadings: "Kentucky dog pounds come in
two forms: (1) non-existent or (2) so pitifully inhumane as to be worse
than non-existent."
The plaintiffs in this class action law suit are seeking to compel the
defendants to maintain a dog pound, employ a dog warden, and humanely
euthanize dogs, obligations which Kentucky officials have blatantly
ignored for nearly half a century. In fact, there is evidence that
several counties have permitted various forms of euthanasia which are
not only inhumane but barbaric. On January 11 and March 6, 2001, the
plaintiffs responded to defendants' motions to have the case dismissed
on various grounds,
namely venue. A ruling on these motions is expected soon.
[