TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-woman-arres ... 36992.html
ALLAS (Reuters) - Police in Texas have arrested a 44-year-old woman on suspicion of shooting dead her caged dog that had just given birth to a litter of puppies because she was "growing agitated" with her pet, police said on Monday.
Police said Douglas told them she shot her 4-year-old shepherd mix named Aowa in the head with a handgun while it was nursing its 10 puppies. Douglas then abandoned the blood-spattered puppies by the side of a nearby road.

I'm so glad they arrested her. What a monster!!!! I have no tolerance for animal cruelty.

Disgusting.

Selina Kyle wrote:I'm so glad they arrested her. What a monster!!!! I have no tolerance for animal cruelty.

Would you have called it cruelty if it was a calf, goat, lamb, or some other animal destined for the freezer? Or if it was a severely damaged animal that was suffering?

The only cruel thing she did was abandoning those unweaned puppies to death by starvation/dehydration.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Selina Kyle wrote:I'm so glad they arrested her. What a monster!!!! I have no tolerance for animal cruelty.

Would you have called it cruelty if it was a calf, goat, lamb, or some other animal destined for the freezer? Or if it was a severely damaged animal that was suffering?

The only cruel thing she did was abandoning those unweaned puppies to death by starvation/dehydration.

Obviously I am referring to the situation at hand. She shot a caged animal that was supposed to be her pet, and in turn left the nursing puppies to die. So yes, that is considered animal cruelty IMO. This is entirely different than putting an animal out of its misery. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was referring to the other situations.

Selina Kyle wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Selina Kyle wrote:I'm so glad they arrested her. What a monster!!!! I have no tolerance for animal cruelty.

Would you have called it cruelty if it was a calf, goat, lamb, or some other animal destined for the freezer? Or if it was a severely damaged animal that was suffering?

The only cruel thing she did was abandoning those unweaned puppies to death by starvation/dehydration.

Obviously I am referring to the situation at hand. She shot a caged animal that was supposed to be her pet, and in turn left the nursing puppies to die. So yes, that is considered animal cruelty IMO. This is entirely different than putting an animal out of its misery. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was referring to the other situations.

Shooting the adult is not necessarily a cruel act. Not too bright in my opinion, along with a few other vindictives, but not necessarily cruel. Dumping the puppies fits the definition of cruel. I also sincerely doubt that she meets the definition of a monster. My statement was mostly to point out that you were, IMHO, overreacting. Guilty of hyperbole. Etc.

In at least two states of which I am aware, if you have an old sick or severely injured pet and you put it down yourself, as all responsible pet owners should and the "State" finds out you have done so, you will be charged with a FELONY animal cruelty for fulfilling your responsibilities. This situation was brought on by some animal activist Terrorists such as HSUS putting pressure on some quite stupid politicians. So calling something cruel isn't necessarily an accurate description.

Sick or injured pets that have no quality of life should be put down. If you think that's OK via handgun, then I'm not going to change your opinion. There are more humane methods. I'm of the opinion that if at all possible, you should chose one of the more humane methods.

Putting down a healthy pet that annoys you via any means is not humane. Nor is it responsible. Clearly we're not talking about a responsible pet owner here.

The amount of animal cruelty out there would make you sick. Shooting healthy pets is just the tip of the iceberg, that's true.

I am fully aware of the spectrum of animal cruelty that exists today, believe me. This is exactly why I feel strongly about it. If you truly believe this is "overreacting", you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. However, I suspect that this opinion stems from ignorance on the topic which is understandable, but inexcusable.

In what universe this is not animal cruelty? This dog was caged and nursing puppies. Any ethical hunter (and I personally know quite a few) will NOT shoot an animal with young. Furthermore, the dog was CAGED, therefore posing no imminent threat. Was this woman hunting to put a meal on her table? I suspect not.

I remember when my uncle put down his favorite dog. The dog couldn't hunt anymore so he shot him. Any law that makes that unlawful is unjust.

There was no cause to shoot the dog, It was not a threat. It was not sick. It was not in pain. She was not going to eat the dog, It was merely an annoyance. We are not usually permitted to kill things above flies that have simply annoyed us. To make things worse it was a nursing mother with pups that needed her. This person had many options other than killing her pet.


1. Deal with it, you bought the dog, you accepted responsibility get your grown up pants on and deal with it. 2. Start calling rescue organizations with some sob story and try to get rid of the dog that way. 3. Put a listing on craigslist in 8 weeks for the pups, then two weeks later for the mother. Get $50 for each dog. 4. Drop the dog off at the local animal control office.

What she should not have done was to shoot her pet in a petty childish temper tantrum. Childish temper tantrums that result in a loss of life even to just a dog are unacceptable. Often we are told to look for signs of instability and to notice them if they occur in those we love that have access to firearms. Not to be jack wagons, but to keep them and everyone else safe. I would say shooting your dog because it annoyed you qualifies as concerning to me. If she can do that, what else is she capable of.

very well said....

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Selina Kyle wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Selina Kyle wrote:I'm so glad they arrested her. What a monster!!!! I have no tolerance for animal cruelty.

Would you have called it cruelty if it was a calf, goat, lamb, or some other animal destined for the freezer? Or if it was a severely damaged animal that was suffering?

The only cruel thing she did was abandoning those unweaned puppies to death by starvation/dehydration.

Obviously I am referring to the situation at hand. She shot a caged animal that was supposed to be her pet, and in turn left the nursing puppies to die. So yes, that is considered animal cruelty IMO. This is entirely different than putting an animal out of its misery. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was referring to the other situations.

Shooting the adult is not necessarily a cruel act. Not too bright in my opinion, along with a few other vindictives, but not necessarily cruel. Dumping the puppies fits the definition of cruel. I also sincerely doubt that she meets the definition of a monster. My statement was mostly to point out that you were, IMHO, overreacting. Guilty of hyperbole. Etc.

In at least two states of which I am aware, if you have an old sick or severely injured pet and you put it down yourself, as all responsible pet owners should and the "State" finds out you have done so, you will be charged with a FELONY animal cruelty for fulfilling your responsibilities. This situation was brought on by some animal activist Terrorists such as HSUS putting pressure on some quite stupid politicians. So calling something cruel isn't necessarily an accurate description.

If it were old, sick or injured, then it would be okay to have the dog put down. However, the only thing wrong with this dog was that the owner was "growing agitated with it" . So yes, I think she should be convicted and punished to the full extent of the law. Separate counts for for the mother dog and each puppy that she left.

Well said mamabearCali!

Diesel42 wrote:Well said mamabearCali!