We are disgusted that a code redrafted 12 years later makes a SOP to humane euthanasia by mentioning shooting.
'Euthanasia methods must be carried out humanely'.
Barbituate is preferred but gunshot is acceptable. So shooting domestic pregnant cats and kittens in cages can be acceptable - as long as it isn't in the view of the public or other animals not being currently shot.
Gassing, car exhausts, hitting on the head and so on - where do they stand on the 'humane' graph?
What effect does it have on an AMO whose council (the proprietor) does not want to pay for a vet? He routinely kills all animals by one of the above methods. All Animal Management Officers should have routine psychological testing both before and after employment. Is a person so employed to kill all animals on the ninth day than capable of genuine animal welfare?
There may be occasions when an animal has to be shot - injured on the road, extremely aggressive. Each of these occasions should require a written report. 'Proprietors' should be obliged to produce an annual report that shows not only the number of animals killed but the manner of their death with a corresponding record from the vet if barbituate is listed as the means.
This is 2011. Apart from the above reasons why should gun shooting be a practical method of euthanasia? I note in sizes of pens there is no mention of the size of sand pit required to stop richocheting bullets. If it is going to be so endorsed by the government surely there should be a regulation size?
And for those that want to talk about shooting being kinder. This possibly may apply to the farmer taking his dog into the field to shoot his companion dog...but not to a terrified dog in a pound.