This is bothering me...

**kittycats_delight** · 09-23-2005, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Denyce
That part of this story bothers me. If the cat was actually diagonosed with rabies the owners would NOT have been allowed to take the cat home. There are only two ways of diagnosing rabies. One is to remove the head and send it to a lab and the other is to quarentine at an approved kennel or vet for a period of 10 days I think. If the animal is then showing signs of rabies by law the vet would have to euthanize the animal. It would never be given back to the owners.

I wasn't even thinking about that. They could not self diagnose this. OMDG that poor sweet kitty.

**JenBKR** · 09-23-2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Denyce
That part of this story bothers me. If the cat was actually diagonosed with rabies the owners would NOT have been allowed to take the cat home. There are only two ways of diagnosing rabies. One is to remove the head and send it to a lab and the other is to quarentine at an approved kennel or vet for a period of 10 days I think. If the animal is then showing signs of rabies by law the vet would have to euthanize the animal. It would never be given back to the owners.

Hmm, I didn't know that. I had assumed all this time that Domino was PTS at the vet, and it wasn't until the other night that it came up in conversation when we were at my in-laws house. Unless he made it up

but why would he do that? Ok, here's the conversation:

My BIL & SIL were looking into adopting a cat and took their daughter to the shelter with them. My neice (she's 5) told someone there about how her hamster got sick and daddy had to shoot it. They all kind of laughed it off at the time. When they were telling me the story the other night, my SIL then said it wasn't actually her hamster but her sister's cat Domino that daddy shot, and wondered how my neice knew about that.

Maybe he just showed signs of rabies but was not diagnosed by the vet. I may have made a lot of assumptions here, but I can't imagine not wanting proof. I might have to ask about that...all I know is what I stated above...

**JenBKR** · 09-23-2005, 03:53 PM

oh no, if they never got proof...now I feel even worse...

**Scooby4** · 09-23-2005, 04:35 PM

It is correct that rabies is diagnosed by removal of the head or quarantine for 10 days. However, you stated that the cat had been attacked. Supposedly by a "rabid" cat. The other cat may have had rabies and in it's bite gave it to the cat that was shot. There needed to be no proof at this point due to just a bite from a "rabid" animal is how the disease is transferred. The cat would have developed rabies from the injuries regardless. I have seen wild cat's with rabies and the symptoms are undeniable. They will attack unprovoked.
I have lived out in the country and it is a practice of SOME people to put their own animals to sleep in such a way. It is NOT because they don't love them, it is because they do!!!

A diseased or severly injured animal is a threat to a farm and their neighbors. Remember Old Yella? I am not saying that I support euthanasia by shotgun, but it may be a necessity in some rural areas to carry the process out in this manner.

**kittycats_delight** · 09-23-2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Scooby4
It is correct that rabies is diagnosed by removal of the head or quarantine for 10 days. However, you stated that the cat had been attacked. Supposedly by a "rabid" cat. The other cat may have had rabies and in it's bite gave it to the cat that was shot. There needed to be no proof at this point due to just a bite from a "rabid" animal is how the disease is transferred. The cat would have developed rabies from the injuries regardless. I have seen wild cat's with rabies and the symptoms are undeniable. They will attack unprovoked.
I have lived out in the country and it is a practice of SOME people to put their own animals to sleep in such a way. It is NOT because they don't love them, it is because they do!!! A diseased or severly injured animal is a threat to a farm and their neighbors. Remember Old Yella? I am not saying that I support euthanasia by shotgun, but it may be a necessity in some rural areas to carry the process out in this manner.

No matter what it is NOT a necessity in this day and age to shoot your pet. The referrence to Ol' Yeller doesn't do this cause any good whatsoever. That movie was just dispicable in todays terms. This is 2005 and there is no way in any part of the civilized world can you consider this action loving or ok.

**luvofallhorses** · 09-23-2005, 05:37 PM

Well said, Michelle!

**lizbud** · 09-23-2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by luvofallhorses
That is so sad. I mean, the poor thing died unloved, unless he shot the kitty out of love, which I don't know, so I won't say anything. They should have taken it to the vets to see if the kitty really had it. Again, I am so sorry. (((JEN)))

You don't blow the head off an animal you love, so he didn't
shoot the cat out of "love". It's a totally cruel and just heartless.

I wonder if the cat was looking at him when the jerk shot it?

If people are too cheap to give an animal a dignified
and loving death, they should never have the animal.

**just me** · 09-24-2005, 12:10 PM

Its not really my place to say, But ive read this thread for a couple of days and makes me ask....
Was this cat up to date on rabies shots???
Rabies is preventable, with proper vaccinations.
And correct me if Im wrong, Dont responsible, loving pet owners
have their pets vaccinated??
I better stop here, this story upsets me, And really I dont have all the facts to continue with whats on my mind and in my heart.
Just me...

**JenBKR** · 09-24-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by just me
I better stop here, this story upsets me, And really I dont have all the facts to continue with whats on my mind and in my heart.
Just me...

That's why I put htis in the dog house - you can say whatever you want. Don't worry, no one will offend me. I am the first one to be upset by this.

I don't know about Domino's vaccinations, and I do not plan to ask. I have my troubles with my in-laws, but I love them and don't want to rock the boat. They have 2 cats now, and I know for a fact that they ar up to date on shots because I was with my SIL when she took them to the vet.

I can't speak for people living on farms, but they live in the suburbs just like me. My BIL drove Domino out to the woods to shoot him.

I did talk to my hubby about this, and he said he's upset too and would never do that to ay of our pets. That's a relief for me!

**finn's mom** · 09-25-2005, 07:08 AM

I, personally, could never shoot a pet. But, I will say this, I'm not going to judge this guy without knowing more facts about the situation. It's easy to say he should have known that he could get his pet put to sleep for free, because everyone in here is above and beyond the usual pet lover. Honestly, I don't know that I would know where to take my pet to get it euthanized for free. I would find a way to raise the money if that was what was preventing me. But, at the same time, these people may not have known that a place would euthanize a pet for free. I don't want to call them ignorant, without quoting the actual dictionary definition...unaware and uninformed. I'm not saying that's a good enough reason to shoot a pet, but, I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, and, thinking that he thought he was doing the best thing. I don't know, though, the story makes me sad, regardless of how and why it came about.

If JenBKR doesn't flat out ask them to tell her what happened, we will never know the reason the cat wasn't vaccinated, the way they knew it had rabies, why they didn't take it somewhere to be humanely euthanized, etc...And, not everyone loves animals like we do. That's the only fact I do know. There are a lot of people that simply look at them as "maintenance", and, I quote that because a friend of mine said those exact words to me yesterday. I love this guy to death, but, he does not like animals. Now, he wouldn't be able to take the cats that live in his home outside to shoot them, because his wife would probably shoot HIM.

They're mostly hers and his kids pets. Again, this story is sad, because the cat didn't receive the best care. But, I don't think the guy can be judged without knowing the entire story.

**just me** · 09-25-2005, 08:58 AM

I agree with Finn's Mom.
This is a very sad sad story.
You really should find out what really happened.
Maybe through this terrible tragedy, lessons were learned.
Lets hope.
Im sending my best to you.
Just me...

**Rachel** · 09-25-2005, 09:53 AM

I have had two dogs euthanized. The first one was my heart dog. It was the most horrible decision I have ever had to make and it was recommended by my vet, yet on the very day we had arranged to take Bailey in, she went into a seizure, so there was no turning back. The second dog was also quite old with a variety of health problems that made the continuation of her life so very difficult for her. She had always been very fearful of going to the vet's, so when it was *time* I paid extra to have the vet and his assistant come to my house to spare her that last trip. I have many times second guessed myself as to the timing of my decision, yet I feel I did the best I could in knowing the right time. I didn't have a crystal ball.

I point all this out in hopes you understand what I am going to say next. From the animal's point of view is death by injection any more less scary or painful or agonizing than death by gun shot? The animal does not know what is going to happen when a gun is pointed at them. Theoretically this type of death should be instaneous. Of course should the person be a bad shot, it could be very tragic. Are we looking at this more from the perpective of the person doing the shooting and how could they take that act into their own hands? Are we assuming that this person wasn't distraught and heavy of heart when in fact they were?

**finn's mom** · 09-25-2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Rachel
I point all this out in hopes you understand what I am going to say next. From the animal's point of view is death by injection any more less scary or painful or agonizing than death by gun shot? The animal does not know what is going to happen when a gun is pointed at them. Theoretically this type of death should be instaneous. Of course should the person be a bad shot, it could be very tragic. Are we looking at this more from the perpective of the person doing the shooting and how could they take that act into their own hands? Are we assuming that this person wasn't distraught and heavy of heart when in fact they were?

I think this was well said. I don't claim to know either way which would be more comfortable for the animal, but, I have always questioned it...honestly, I wouldn't think it would be any harder on the animal, as both ways are supposed to be instantaneous, as you stated. Again, I personally couldn't shoot my pet, but, only because I'm basically not capable of doing it. I don't even think I could do it if it was the best thing for him. For example, and, this is extreme...but, it could happen...if I was out in the middle of nowhere and Finn managed to slip away from me and get hit by a car, and, was going to die painfully before I could get him to a vet, I don't think I could shoot him. Even if I thought it would be better for him. I just don't think I'd be able to do it. I couldn't even step on a field mouse that was dying painfully because it had eaten poison. My ex husband did it, and, I was glad he did. Because I knew the mouse was suffering. Anyway...just my personal thoughts on the subject...