For people who are interested in the whole subject of "euthanasia", the Humane Society of the United States has its euthanasia (culling, killing?) statement on the internet. I am aware that some animals are in horrible condition, fatally injured or ill, necessitating euthanasia as a humane option (not as sheer killing) and that a few dangerous dogs have to be euthanised.

http://files.hsus.org/web-files/HSI/E_Library_PDFs/eng_euth_statement.pdf

The report is interesting. I found the following paragraph to be strange.

"It is a binding obligation of shelter administrators to evaluate current euthanasia procedures frequently, ensure that animals are being properly handled, and verify that employees are competent, compassionate, and properly trained. Euthanasia should be entrusted to the most conscientious and qualified personnel only--never to a person who is careless, indifferent to animal suffering, or untrained in animal behavior and euthanasia techniques. Employees must be able to cope emotionally with euthanizing large numbers of animals while maintaining a concern for the well-being of each individual dog or cat."

Just how does an employee cope emotionally when killing large numbers of healthy animals? Being concerned about " the well-being of each individual cat or dog" does not mean killing them, I would think. This is NOT euthanasia.

I note that HSUS still considers the use of carbon dioxide to be an acceptable method of dispatching some animals.

Jean Martin
Lantzville BC