[Newsbot]

Title: B.C. man gets probation for sled dog slaughter
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Strutz
Date: 2012-11-22 18:51:42
Canadian

[Strutz]

What about the owners of the tour company?

$1:

In his claim, Fawcett said he was traumatized from being ordered to cull dogs no longer needed when business dipped following the Vancouver Winter Olympics

$1:

During Thursday’s sentencing hearing, the Crown detailed how the tour company’s owner directed Fawcett to maintain the dogs on a most limited budget because of the post-Olympic dip.

[BeaverFever]

More proof that there's no justice in Canada when it comes to animal cruelty. In a way, I'm glad that he at least feels tormented about his actions but I would but rather than take satisfaction from his pain, I would prefer to see him mentally healthy and behind bars so that we finally send a message to society that this disgusting behaviour will not be tolerated.

[Brenda]

What about the dogs OWNER?? The one who is responsible for them? Is he being charged at all??

[Brenda]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

More proof that there's no justice in Canada when it comes to animal cruelty. In a way, I'm glad that he at least feels tormented about his actions but I would but rather than take satisfaction from his pain, I would prefer to see him mentally healthy and behind bars so that we finally send a message to society that this disgusting behaviour will not be tolerated.

Bitch at the owner, not at this guy who tried what he could.

[BeaverFever]

Bitch at them both. If my boss told me to do something like that, no way I'd do it.

[Brenda]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bitch at them both. If my boss told me to do something like that, no way I'd do it.

And be out of a job. It all depends on how desperate someone is.

I doubt this man is very strong and was probably not able to stand up to his boss, who I assume is one of the biggest assholes one can run into.
This guy has been very remorseful from day one, other than his boss, who deliberately wanted him to kill those animals and starve the others.
"Business is business, and when your product costs more than it gives you profit, you must get rid of it"

Besides that, the way people treat animals here is just too bad for words. "Yeah, my dog is pregnant again, I need to get rid of the puppies. Want some? Other wise I will drown them"
"They are living creatures! If you don't want puppies, why don't you have your dog fixed"
"Yeah, whatever, it's just a dog. Not gonna spend any money on that..."

REAL conversation I had not too long ago. It just blows my mind.

[andyt]

It's not just that he feared the loss of his job. He thought he was doing the most humane thing, since the dogs were starving and starting to kill each other.

This sentence is appropriate for him, but no way should the owners get off the hook. They should have provided funds to get rid of the dogs in a proper manner, ie have them adopted out or euthanized by a vet. Even that latter option is pretty bizarre - breed lots of dogs and when you're not making any more money off them, just kill them. But better than this situation, anyway.

[Zipperfish]

Brenda Brenda:

And be out of a job.

Yes, and lose my job. I'd walk in a minute if someone told me to slaughter fifty-plus dogs with a 22 and a knife. Anyone with half a brain would. This guy should be shot and pissed on.

$1:

Besides that, the way people treat animals here is just too bad for words.

True enough. there's enough puppies undergoing burn experiments as we speak but no one cares to lift the veil.

[BeaverFever]

What zip said.

I would argue that the order to kill those animals was in effect an order to commit a criminal act and therefore not an order any employee would have to follow or could be fired for refusing

[Brenda]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

What zip said.

I would argue that the order to kill those animals was in effect an order to commit a criminal act and therefore not an order any employee would have to follow or could be fired for refusing

I would argue that although it is morally reprehensible, it is not illegal to kill your own animals (many pet owners euthanize their own pets, and many on here have stated they would kill their dog themselves if it attacks someone)...

[BeaverFever]

Ya well they guy got charged and convicted so obviously the law as broken somewhere. To the extent that this guy is not a vet and doesn't have any other qualifications to suggest he could humanely euthanize 50 dogs at a time, a contravention of animal cruelty laws should have been foreseeable. I also wonder whether ANY layperson should be euthanizing animals (farmers, slaughterhouse workers, etc generously not being considered laypersons in ths case).

[Brenda]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ya well they guy got charged and convicted so obviously the law as broken somewhere. To the extent that this guy is not a vet and doesn't have any other qualifications to suggest he could humanely euthanize 50 dogs at a time, a contravention of animal cruelty laws should have been foreseeable. I also wonder whether ANY layperson should be euthanizing animals (farmers, slaughterhouse workers, etc generously not being considered laypersons in ths case).

Yeah, it didn't go quick enough for 9. The other 47 was no problem:

$1:

A British Columbia man who culled 56 sled dogs was sentenced Thursday to three years probation for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to nine of the animals.

So, it is fine to tell your employee to kill 56 of your animals, and it is fine to do it as long as you do it quick.

[BeaverFever]

Brenda Brenda:

So, it is fine to tell your employee to kill 56 of your animals, and it is fine to do it as long as you do it quick.

Imo, yet another gap in our animal cruelty laws, which are weaker than most of iur US and European peers. But at any rate, was it reasonable for the employee and the boss to expect that he could kill them all humanely, or is this like an unqualified airline pilot saying "but only 9 of 56 passengers died"

[Brenda]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Brenda Brenda:

So, it is fine to tell your employee to kill 56 of your animals, and it is fine to do it as long as you do it quick.

Imo, yet another gap in our animal cruelty laws, which are weaker than most of iur US and European peers. But at any rate, was it reasonable for the employee and the boss to expect that he could kill them all humanely, or is this like an unqualified airline pilot saying "but only 9 of 56 passengers died"

It is my understanding that 56 of the dog were actually killed, only 9 of them were apparently dying "slower than they should"...