Is A Captive Bolt Gun Ever An Acceptable Means Of Euthanasia?

[Ian]

To me if this were the kindest means of euthanasia then vets would be frequently choosing it & I can't believe that an injection is a worse way for an animal to die even when it has to happen (for an unidentified skin condition & lack of socialisation I don't believe it should have happened at all - especially as the dogs involved were apparently considered offerable to other rescues! )

 

What do you think of the use of the captive bolt gun?

 

 

Note: This question relates to the "story" which some of you may have seen on other forums, various rescue websites, in Welsh Newspapers, on BBC Wales etc of 10 German Shepherds put to death in Wales by the RSPCA and their Inspectors belief that this is apparently their favoured method of euthanasia

 

An RSPCA statement can be found here:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=NewsFeature&articleId=1236789031280&marker=1

[lester]

I am not sure. I have been involved in th euse of the captive boly gun in abattoirs and it does take a lot of skill to use properly on an animal that is clamped.

(At one time it was the law that allmeat for human consumption swa killed this way, but now it is mostly done in a very cruel way with a knife, because of religious reasons enforced vi various supermarkets. It i still possible to find humane meat , but is very difficult, farm shops are often best but sometimes they are reliant on the locla abattoir.s system)

It does take a lot of experience ie full time, to do it properly. I would like to see some research on the usagem training and design of the gun, but am convinced that the required restraint will put a dog into stress.

[Mrs Mop]

Done properly it is a humane way of killing animals, but if not done properly then it is cruel.

 

The way we normally put our pets to sleep in theory is humane, but sometimes in practice it can be cruel. When I had Tommy pts she fought it, she was ill and in pain with kidney failure but still faught it. I have known horses to be pts by injection and the injection didn't work, they were shot with a bolt in the end. Each time the horse was very distressed until the bold was used, then they went quickly.

 

We can only do what we think is best for the animal, but as we are human, we also make mistakes.

[Maria]

Done properly it is a humane way of killing animals, but if not done properly then it is cruel.

 

The way we normally put our pets to sleep in theory is humane, but sometimes in practice it can be cruel. When I had Tommy pts she fought it, she was ill and in pain with kidney failure but still faught it. I have known horses to be pts by injection and the injection didn't work, they were shot with a bolt in the end. Each time the horse was very distressed until the bold was used, then they went quickly.

 

We can only do what we think is best for the animal, but as we are human, we also make mistakes.

 

I agree. I know someone so traumatised by their pet's euthanasia (by injection at the vets), that they won't consider having another one in case they have to experience it again I wouldn't think people apply to work for the RSPCA or any other welfare org with the aim of being inhumane to animals.

 

Presumably any rescue that believes it has the experience / resources (without having seen them) to have taken these dogs in at short notice have already passed their emergency contact details on to the RSPCA so that they can pass them on to Inspectors (inc whether offering countrywide help and details of breeds that would be taken )for future reference / advice to owners /next of kin facing the same difficulties?

If not, why not?

Edited September 2, 2009 by Maria

[Fee]

I think if done properly it can be a very quick and humane way to euthanase an animal. I suspect vets don't use it routinely for domestic animals because it's probably more distressing for owners to witness. We'd all, I guess, rather see our beloved animals drift gently off to sleep (as an ideal - I know this isn't always the case) than be killed instantly in this way.

 

I don't know if it's still the case, but vets used captive bolt guns on horses and larger animals in the past. I've sadly seen one used years ago on a horse that was terribly injured, and it was instant and I suspect a much quicker (and probably safer) method with a screaming, thrashing horse than trying to find a vein, administer a sedative and then a lethal injection.

 

I find it very worrying, though, that it can be used quite legally by totally untrained people and seems to be the method of choice to dispose of greyhounds on the cheap. I doubt in those circumstances it is always used with either skill or care, and I'm sure there is the potential for dogs to suffer horribly as poor Rusty did.

[Ian]

Re the above at least some of the rescues who have said they would have helped were already known directly to the local RSPCA Inspectors involved - but were never approached for help - that is how this story originally came out!

 

There appears to be a diversity of views on how pleasant an injection is / isn't to see but I possibly agree re the comment on untrained people - one of my comments on DP was that I believe only a qualified vet (deemed to be necessary / an expert witness for cruelty prosecutions) not an Inspector should be putting to sleep any animal.

 

I think that to be sure of their true reasons we may have to ask the RCVS for comments as to why vets don't use bolt guns but I suspect that the reason bolt guns are used in slaughter houses has nothing to do with the animals suffering (or lack of) but the fact that the necessary drugs cannot be introduced to the human food chain.

[Rudi]

I would think that only people who don't eat meat can really object to the RSPCA using a captive bolt gun as a means of killing a dog. They've probably had as much training on using it as a vet or a slaughter house employee does. Thousands upon thousands of animals are killed this way each day in the UK. People might find it an offensive way to kill a dog and I would not choose to watch my dogs end their lives in that way, but there's no moral difference whatsoever. They're used in a slaughter house as quick means of destroying the front parts of the brain to render an animal unconcious but the brain stem stays alive for a while and the heart continues pumping, to allow the animal to be bled.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Rudi

[Mrs Mop]

Vets do use bolt guns when putting horses down, they prefer it to injecting because the house is unconsious much quicker. It is easier to guage the amount to inject with a small animal than a big one, a big bull the bolt has no effect on, the head is too thick.

 

How many owners would stay with their pets if the gun was used? I don't think I could but an injection is much easier on the owner.

[Laura_E]

I would think that the main reason it was used in this case was simply to reduce costs. We all know that in many pounds abroad they use horrific forms of 'euthanasia' to dispose of as many animals as possible without having to endure high costs. Even in the USA some pounds use gas chambers, and they are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But even the gas chamber seems to be a more humane way than electrocution, which many South American and European countries use. Then, like Fiona said, we have similar situations over here with the illegal slaying of greyhounds. It all sickens me.

 

The thought of any animal ending their life in that way is just horrific, be it a dog, cow or pig. Personally, I think a lot of people probably want to believe that the captive bolt is a quick and pain free way for an animal to die so that they don't have to feel guilty about eating meat, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this isn't the case, especially when used by the careless and inexperienced.

 

In the case of pets, I would have thought that it would be a much more traumatic experience for both the owner and the animal, it would seem more like an execution than a kind act of release. I can't see doctors in Sweden using it to euthanise people, so why should it be any different for an animal if it is considered to be a 'humane' method?

[Ian]

I would think that only people who don't eat meat can really object to the RSPCA using a captive bolt gun as a means of killing a dog. They've probably had as much training on using it as a vet or a slaughter house employee does. Thousands upon thousands of animals are killed this way each day in the UK. People might find it an offensive way to kill a dog and I would not choose to watch my dogs end their lives in that way, but there's no moral difference whatsoever. They're used in a slaughter house as quick means of destroying the front parts of the brain to render an animal unconcious but the brain stem stays alive for a while and the heart continues pumping, to allow the animal to be bled.

 

I don't think this is necessarily true at all. Whilst I acknowledged elsewhere that there is perhaps some hypocrisy in eating meat & proclaiming animal welfare the fact nevertheless remains that slaughter houses are exactly that - profit making businesses exisiting solely to kill animals & produce meat.

 

The RSPCA is something entirely different- it campaigns against some farming practices, takes money from the public to prevent cruelty, shows lots of nice images of animal rescue etc. Nowhere does it ever state that your money may also be used to support this kind of practice & I suspect most donors would therefore be appalled to learn of it.

[Ian]

The thought of any animal ending their life in that way is just horrific, be it a dog, cow or pig. Personally, I think a lot of people probably want to believe that the captive bolt is a quick and pain free way for an animal to die so that they don't have to feel guilty about eating meat, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this isn't the case, especially when used by the careless and inexperienced.

 

I think you're probably right - it's certainly caused me to think

[Mrs Mop]

 

 

The thought of any animal ending their life in that way is just horrific, be it a dog, cow or pig. Personally, I think a lot of people probably want to believe that the captive bolt is a quick and pain free way for an animal to die so that they don't have to feel guilty about eating meat, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this isn't the case, especially when used by the careless and inexperienced.

 

It doesn't matter which method is used it can still go wrong and the animal suffers, there is no guarentee that an animal will be pts quickly and painlessly.

 

I don't feel guilty for eating meat, why should I? I am fed up with people telling me I should feel guilty for eating meat, I don't tell others what to eat and don't expect others to tell me I should feel guilty.

[Laura_E]

I don't feel guilty for eating meat, why should I? I am fed up with people telling me I should feel guilty for eating meat, I don't tell others what to eat and don't expect others to tell me I should feel guilty.

 

 

I don't think I actually said that you should feel guilty. I said a lot, not all, of people would probably like to think that whatever animal they are eating died in a quick and humane way. I'm sure that most people (not all) would feel guilty if they knew that they were consuming an animal that died in a horrible and traumatic way. It's human nature to try and reassure ourselves, and each other, when faced with with an uncomfortable or upsetting situation.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Laura_E

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

Captive bolt is on WSPAs not acceptable list for euthansia of dogs and cats

[blackmagic]

From WSPA websire dated 6 Noc 2009

 

Reports that WSPA has been critical of the RSPCA on the use of captive bolt guns are incorrect. Both our organisations appreciate that sometimes there are sad and extremely difficult circumstances where this method of putting an animal to sleep is necessary.

 

WSPA's views on bolt gun use

 

WSPA believes effective and humane use of a bolt gun requires a specialist combination of skills; knowledge of anatomical variation in dog breeds, as well as thorough training in humane slaughter and dog handling. RSPCA inspectors are incredibly well trained and should be considered specialists.

 

Inspectors at the RSPCA are trained to use these devices using protocols developed with the Humane Slaughter Association for a range of species. They are also trained to consider all other methods available and select the most humane and safe method depending on the situation.

 

The RSPCA does not use captive bolts as a matter of course. They are used only when other options are not suitable, and generally where they are used, it is mainly with farm animals.

 

Captive bolts are not used for euthanasia of dogs in WSPA projects, and not listed as an acceptable method for euthanasia in the WSPA guidance (on the International Companion Animal Management - ICAM website).

 

This is because the bulk of WSPA's stray dog work is carried out in developing countries. As such, WSPA highlights humane slaughter methods that require less specialist knowledge in order to give the chance of a humane death to as many animals as possible.