Post by: UrbanTrapper on October 04, 2015, 06:59:47 PM
Post by: Stein on October 04, 2015, 07:07:07 PM
Post by: Turner89 on October 04, 2015, 07:52:47 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 04, 2015, 08:22:34 PM
I am thinking this is something that needs to be brought up in the Legislature.
The problem we have in this State is with the ability of municipalities to vest law enforcement powers in local humane societies. I helped get a case like this dropped a year or two ago. We need some protection from overzealous animal lovers though.
Post by: Stickerbush on October 04, 2015, 08:30:02 PM
Post by: Trapper John on October 05, 2015, 06:18:01 PM
This is nothing new for the Department of Wildlife. I've been up a the Mill Creek Office when the girls at the front desk tell people on the phone that they have to drown the animal. The person on the phone always wants to take it somewhere and release it. The department tell that they cannot take any animal out anywhere and release it. So the person on the phone always ask what they can or have to do with it and they are told to fill up a garbage can with water and drown it. If you can't do it they always tell them that they have the option to hire a NWCO and they will that the animal and euthanize it for them.
I think if they tell people to drown it than they should back up their statement and have the Prosecutor drop the charges.
Will they do that ... :rolleyes:.... :o
JC :hello:
I think if they tell people to drown it than they should back up their statement and have the Prosecutor drop the charges.
Will they do that ... :rolleyes:.... :o
JC :hello:
Post by: jasnt on October 05, 2015, 09:39:47 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2015, 07:35:19 AM
Sounds like we need to have a letter writing party and force wdfw to admit this is protocol. In writing in the trapping regs. Otherwise one of us could be next. We've lost so much already. Next we won't be able to set under water
What would help this woman more would be letter-writing to the DA handling this case. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2015, 08:18:37 AM
Dear Mr. Morgan,
I'm writing to you as a service to give you information you may not previously have had. Until very recently, the WDFW has listed drowning as an appropriate way to euthanize trapped nuisance animals. As you know, it is illegal in WA to release nuisance animals into the wild. She had little choice, as it's illegal to discharge a firearm within Auburn city limits. The alternative of using car exhaust to euthanize an animal, a suggested method by the WDFW, is horrible and takes an animal much longer to die, all the while choking violently.
Priscilla Schmidt had stated that officials had told her previously that drowning was an acceptable method of euthanization. The KOMO news article quoted you as saying her claims were false. It actually seems quite likely that she'd received just that instruction in the past. It is only within the last couple of years that the WDFW has changed it's website to remove drowning as a viable option.
I get what you do and I respect it. I love animals and I appreciate what the local humane societies do for our communities. Pursuing prosecution against this woman isn't going to serve anyone and may well turn some of the community against your shelter and it's funding. Please respond and let me know that you've asked the City Attorney to drop the investigation and any pending charges. I hope you do what's right here and I await your response.
Thanks for your service to our community. I look forward to your timely reply.
PMan
Post by: jasnt on October 06, 2015, 08:26:47 AM
great letter pman. What I was talking about was getting wdfw to put drowning back in the regs and on the web site. Maybe I miss understood but it sounded like she wasn't going to be charged :dunno: I hope not!!!Sounds like we need to have a letter writing party and force wdfw to admit this is protocol. In writing in the trapping regs. Otherwise one of us could be next. We've lost so much already. Next we won't be able to set under water
What would help this woman more would be letter-writing to the DA handling this case. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2015, 08:30:48 AM
Post by: jasnt on October 06, 2015, 10:08:44 AM
It's likely that they removed because of pressure from either local humane societies or from their new best friends at HSUS. I'd find it extremely unlikely that they'd reverse their decision on this. Who do you think we should contact? I'll try it.thats what I'm afraid of. Bruce would know just who to talk to and has prob done so. Humptulips who do we need to bug to put the preasure back the other way?
Post by: krout81 on October 06, 2015, 10:45:05 AM
The opossum is unclassified and may be trapped or killed year-round; no permit is necessary. No permit is necessary for the use of live (cage) traps; however, a special trapping permit is required for the use of all traps other than live traps (RCW 77.15.192, 77.15.194; WAC 232-12-142).
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2015, 11:16:38 AM
Had a co-worker complain about possum killin one time and I sent her this. Honestly I have not looked to see if anything has changed, but she never mentioned it again.
The opossum is unclassified and may be trapped or killed year-round; no permit is necessary. No permit is necessary for the use of live (cage) traps; however, a special trapping permit is required for the use of all traps other than live traps (RCW 77.15.192, 77.15.194; WAC 232-12-142).
The most widely accepted—but still disputed—guidelines for euthanasia practices follow the standards set by the American Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA), which include:
An injection of sodium pentobarbital or other pharmaceutical.
Carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2) supplied to a chamber from a compressed gas cylinder (small and medium sized animals).
A gun shot to the head (small and medium sized animals. (Check local firearm ordinances).
Stunning, followed by decapitation (amphibians, reptiles, and birds only).
Cervical dislocation by stretching the animal so the neck is hyper-extended to separate the first vertebrae from the skull (birds, rabbits, and small rodents only).
Unfortunately, the majority of the above agents of euthanasia require training and care to administer. In addition, most are not available to, or do not appeal to, the do-it-yourselfer.
Care should always be taken to guarantee that the animal is euthanized humanely. If it cannot, or you do not have the necessary training, an alternative would be to contact your local wildlife damage control company, veterinarian, or animal shelter. They may euthanize the animal for a fee.
While drowning and freezing have long been considered a humane way to deal with problem wildlife, animal experts no longer generally accept these techniques, and they are not considered humane by the AVMA standards.
While shooting an animal may sound extreme, in many cases it is the best available method because of its quickness, and it may cause the least amount of stress and pain to the animal. If shooting is used, the operator and firearm must be capable of producing a quick death. To calm down an active animal, the trap can be covered with a dark towel or other cover.
Depending on the species and size of the animal, a .22 caliber rifle or revolver, or a high-velocity pellet gun should be used. A pellet gun fired to the head is capable of quickly killing tree squirrels, rabbits, and similar-size mammals. Local laws and regulations regarding the discharge of firearms must be followed. See Step 4 below for information on how to handle the dead animal.
Note: In order to properly check an animal for possible rabies, the animal must not be shot in the head; instead, aim for the lung area directly behind the front shoulder.
Human psychological responses to euthanasia of animals need to be considered, with grief at the loss of life as the most common reaction. People who have to euthanize animals, especially under public pressure to save the animals rather than destroy them, can experience extreme distress and anxiety.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/nuisance/trapping.html
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2015, 01:12:23 PM
Hi John… thanks for your note regarding the Schmidt Opossum Drowning case.
A couple of points of clarity…the Auburn Valley Humane Society is not the policing authority in Auburn for animal cruelty enforcement or prosecution. We contract with the city to house their lost dogs and cats. I cannot direct the city attorney to drop the case as it is in the hands of the Auburn Police Department. We are also not a wild life agency nor can we accept and treat wildlife from the public. This is a fish and game function. There are several licensed wildlife rehab organizations and trappers we refer people to when they are faced with wild life issues.
I have looked at the transcripts of the news articles and did not see where I said her claims were false…while I did not agree with her actions, fully understanding the severity of the situation, I in fact felt sorry for her and empathized with her over her decision. I also acknowledged her decision as a generational solution from the past. I made it a point, as it is not my place to pass judgement, to end the interview with the hope that the tragic death of this little animal would not be in vain and would be a learning experience for the public.
According to Auburn Animal control, opossums are considered wildlife and not nuisance animals, so letting it go could have been an option… and after all, it and its family did share the neighborhood with Ms. Schmidt.
Bottom line is, she did have options and she decided to intentionally killed the animal in a way that is illegal now even though it was not a few years ago… laws are changed every year by the people we elect to run our society… I remember it was only a few years ago that it was illegal for people of color to sit in the front of the bus… or for two people of the same sex to get married… laws change because we as a society realize how terrible and unfair they are… we may not like the results of law changes, but it is our responsibility as citizens of society and the keepers of this planet to know them and follow them… and when we decide to break them, we must be willing to pay the consequences for our actions… nuisance animal or not…
Do I feel sorry for her… yes, I am sure it was a hard decision for her to make… do I think her decision was generationally motivated… yes, and I am sure my father god rest his soul, if he were alive, having grown up on the farm, would have made the same decision… is this a good educational opportunity for the public... yes, it has sparked debate all over the state… do I think she should be held accountable for her actions… yes, otherwise our integrity as an organization could be brought into question… remember we are here for furry creatures who need our advocacy and protection.
Those are my thoughts… I welcome yours.
Phil
Phil Morgan
Executive Director
Auburn Valley Humane Society
4910 A Street SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Office - 253-249-7849
Cell - 727-729-2159
Fax - 253-929-8612
Shelter Hours | Sun 12p-4p |Mon - Fri 10a-6p | Sat 12-6p
www.auburnvalleyhs.org
Post by: Curly on October 06, 2015, 03:21:42 PM
Mr. Morgan is needs to get a clue.
:bash:
Post by: jasnt on October 06, 2015, 03:51:04 PM
:rolleyes::yeah:
Mr. Morgan is needs to get a clue.
:bash:
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2015, 04:03:54 PM
A felony? Really?From reading the article it sounds like the city attorney is handling the case as a city ordinance violation. This means the most it could be is a gross misdemeanor. City attorney's don't handle felonies, and cities cant enact ordinances which are felonies.
Post by: seth30 on October 06, 2015, 04:16:54 PM
Thank you for your input in this :tup:A felony? Really?From reading the article it sounds like the city attorney is handling the case as a city ordinance violation. This means the most it could be is a gross misdemeanor. City attorney's don't handle felonies, and cities cant enact ordinances which are felonies.
Post by: Humptulips on October 06, 2015, 09:22:33 PM
Here is what the law says in part;
RCW 16.52.205
Animal cruelty in the first degree
(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized in law, he or she intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal.
(2) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal and as a result causes: (a) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (b) death.
So just read through that and think about some of the phrases like "substantial pain" or "unjustifiable pain". Clearly though suffocation in (2) fits the case but it has to be done with criminal negligence. More to read:
RCW 9A.08.010
(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.
All of that seems to be very open to interpretation. The only thing that keeps hunters from being impaled on this law is the clause "except as authorized in law"
Trapping is a little different as we are authorized in law to trap but there are no laws defining acceptable dispatch methods. You can read the guidelines on the WDFW site from AVMA but they are not law. WDFW will tell you they are only guidelines.
The only thing we do have going for us is that drowning is mentioned in our trapper education curriculum. It has never been mentioned in any of the regulations to my knowledge.
I have tried to get the department to put down acceptable dispatch methods for trapped animals in a WAC but they will not. WDFW will tell you they have sole enforcement powers over anything to do with wildlife. I am not sure that is completely true.
The whole thing is a potential danger to trappers and I have been concerned about it for a while but have gotten no where with WDFW on fixing it. I think the next step may be in the Legislature.
If I was going to write letters about this case in particular I would write the prosecutor and in WDFW I would write Director Unsworth director@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: jasnt on October 06, 2015, 10:39:12 PM
Post by: Machias on October 07, 2015, 05:27:19 AM
I doubt "Phil" enjoyed my response, POS.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2015, 11:06:57 AM
"Hi John,
I appreciate your kind words and understanding in this delicate situation… I talked to the officer who filed the charges this morning… at this point… it is out of his hands and unless he is called to testify he will not be notified of the progress of the case… I asked him to have the City Attorney handling the case give me a call to discuss the pursuit of the case and if it did go to trial, to possibly suggest some lesser charges and /or less impactful punishments if she is found guilty…
I will let you know of any progress on my part… "
He sounds like a reasonable man.
Post by: UrbanTrapper on October 07, 2015, 01:28:23 PM
Post by: Evil_EdwardO on October 07, 2015, 02:06:45 PM
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/dinner-gets-very-local-for-squirrel-eating-seattleite/
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2015, 02:32:21 PM
The City Attorney should know enough NOT to take this case to trial.
Yes, I agree it would be a waste of resources and an injustice. I couldn't find the Auburn city attorney's information anywhere online.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 07, 2015, 02:49:21 PM
Look under Legal:
http://www.auburnwa.gov/contact.htm
Post by: Humptulips on October 07, 2015, 04:01:17 PM
Post by: jasnt on October 07, 2015, 04:45:43 PM
I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.:tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2015, 05:01:18 PM
I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.
That's great news. I just sent off an email before I saw this. I'm glad to hear this idiocy went away.
Post by: Machias on October 08, 2015, 08:43:49 AM
I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.
You ARE the Man!!
Post by: Carp Commander on October 08, 2015, 10:04:29 AM
Post by: Humptulips on October 08, 2015, 01:49:53 PM
I'd like to take credit but I think it was going to be dropped anyway. Contrary to popular opinion nowadays there still are some public servants with some common sense.I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.
You ARE the Man!!
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 08, 2015, 01:50:55 PM
Post by: Machias on October 08, 2015, 07:30:12 PM
I'd like to take credit but I think it was going to be dropped anyway. Contrary to popular opinion nowadays there still are some public servants with some common sense.I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.
You ARE the Man!!
:tup: