100+ Huskies Stabbed and Shot to Death

[Squid]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...er-tourism-slump/story-e6frfq80-1225998438497

ONE hundred husky dogs were slaughtered after the 2010 Winter Olympics because they were no longer needed to pull tourist sleds at a Canadian ski resort.

The killings were reportedly carried out over two days in April by one worker with a shotgun and a knife, with reports of injured dogs crawling out of a mass grave.
The dogs were killed because business slumped in the two months after the Games and they were no longer needed by tourism companies Outdoor Adventures and Howling Dogs, which sell dog-sled rides to tourists, reports said.
"We've opened a police file and assigned an investigator," Royal Canadian Mounted Police Staff Sergeant Steve LeClair said.
The case came to light on Monday after the worker claimed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of killing the dogs and was reportedly awarded compensation.

Marcie Moriarty of the Society for Prevention of Animal Cruelty, the lead agency in the investigation, said: "The way he describes [in the board's report] multiple shots and faces blown off and coming back on a second day is gruesome. The way this employee describes it, it's a massacre. These dogs were killed in front of other dogs that were all tied up."
The man's personal injury lawyer Cory Steinberg said: "It wasn't always a clean, one-shot kill. He ended up seeing and having to put the end to some horrific scenes."
A spokeswoman for the law firm refused to comment on the criminal investigation and Outdoor Adventures did not return repeated calls.
The company's website, with photos of huskies and sleds, continues to advertise dog sled rides.

I can't believe this is allowed, I hope whoever ordered the slaughter and whoever did it get sent to prison or get the death penalty!!

I am seriously sickened!!

 

[Fusionist]

That really is pretty damn disturbing. I know this sounds kind of arrogant, but I wouldn't expect this in Canada. That this was even a option to consider by the company just really boggles my mind.

 

[Squid]

yeah and what annoys me the most is they guy went and killed them willingly...then claimed compensation?? wtf

 

[Valvalis]

Well, if he did truly end up with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result, then at least that's a good thing, because there are loads of people in this world who are responsible for death and destruction and don't even flinch. However, it's atrocious that he was given compensation for it. Why not put these dogs up for adoption, they're one of the most beautiful dogs out there and who wouldn't want them? Seriously, it boggles my mind that dog breeding for pets isn't made illegal, because there are so many unwanted animals out there. Ugh, I could kill someone this makes me so angry

 

[moogling]

I don't give a damn where your business is going- you don't just kill off all of these dogs because of it. In this day and age I'm amazed at some of the barbaric shit these sick morons are getting away with.

I'm sure there were MANY other options other than SLAUGHTERING the poor things, my god. I'm sure there are lots of people out there willing to either buy them or bring them into a shelter. I also can't even begin to fathom how you'd be able to live with yourself afterwards.

 

[Rydia]

This story makes me so angry. I volunteer at my local humane society and huskies typically have no problem getting adopted. (Though most are not prepared to take on this dog breed)

why did they not put these dogs up for adoption? They could have made money off of this! I hope they get charged with a felony for animal cruelty!

 

[Amizon]

I don't care about what kind of state he was in, there's no excuse for murdering those poor things. They didn't stand a chance and I hope he's shaking for what he's done. That's animal cruelty at its worst right there and it's damn right sickening.

 

[Valvalis]

There's actually a free petition up on Care2.com now concerning this issue, if anyone is interested. It looks like they're trying to send it to the BC SPCA to encourage legal prosecution for what happened. I'm not sure what the policy is for posting links to such websites on here, but it should be easy to find if you search their petition section for "100 Sled Dogs" or something to that effect It already has 54,000 signatures and has well overshot its goal, it's no surprise.

EDIT: Something I just realized is that they do ask for a bit of information on it, like name, address, and an email address; however, it looks like all they actually display publicly is name, city, and state or country you live in. And you can choose to have your name not displayed as well. Sorry I forgot to mention this earlier, if anyone has already gone looking for it

 

[Rydia]

I would like to sign the petition for this. Can you provide the link? Seriously, I don't care if he has PTSD he should still be prosecuted. And if someone was "forcing" him, well all I can say is that he was the one with the gun and could have easily silenced the person pushing him.

 

[The Witch]

Wow... this is absolutely disgusting. Those poor animals. They not only were shot but was forced to live through the terrifying moments of watching their pack be slaughtered. Death among packs really messes with dogs like this so this is beyond cruel.


I hope this murdering bastard gets what he deserves.

 

[10th Doctor]

I can't believe this guy. He can't be human. How can you look into these dogs eyes, and just... destroy them? What a disgrace to humanity. I hope he never sees sunlight again.

 

[Ethics]

Although I do agree that killing them all was not the right choice to make, I don't entirely think that the anger at the employee who killed the dogs is needed. It's all a matter of what you know and the truth is we know nothing about said person. That I saw from the news article I read about this, there was no name of personal information on said "killer". It could have been a naive teenager, a desperate single parent. We make our claims about this person from an outside perspective, when in truth the person could have had to make a very difficult decision when told to do this. The employee could have initially refused this but had it further forced on them. The company did not contest the employee's claim the day after, which could mean alot of things. A couple of which could attest to said employees innocence. On that note, however, I will say that this is entirely based on a whole lot of 'could be' scenarios and I could be completely wrong. I just think hating everyone caught in the initial castnet is not a founded response especially with so little details.

As I said, the article I read clamed the company did not attest the employee's PTSD claim (in fact, they corrected a mistake in which he said he killed only 70 dogs). Personally, I think that means the company knew what kind of political blowback was coming and; realize there is no way of escaping it and have resigned to the inevitable, believe making this move of 'mercy' would help them in court, or (what I personally believe the most likely) simply wanted to pay off the employee so they would keep quiet.

 

[Gabe]

Okay, that's some crazy bullshit right there. I honestly don't see why they couldn't have just been put up for adoption. This is something I would expect from hundreds of years ago. Society isn't as barbaric as they could have been long ago. This is totally unacceptable, and I want to sign that petition.

 

[Squid]

Although I do agree that killing them all was not the right choice to make, I don't entirely think that the anger at the employee who killed the dogs is needed. It's all a matter of what you know and the truth is we know nothing about said person. That I saw from the news article I read about this, there was no name of personal information on said "killer". It could have been a naive teenager, a desperate single parent. We make our claims about this person from an outside perspective, when in truth the person could have had to make a very difficult decision when told to do this. The employee could have initially refused this but had it further forced on them. The company did not contest the employee's claim the day after, which could mean alot of things. A couple of which could attest to said employees innocence. On that note, however, I will say that this is entirely based on a whole lot of 'could be' scenarios and I could be completely wrong. I just think hating everyone caught in the initial castnet is not a founded response especially with so little details.

I Blame the company and the person doing the killings.
The company told the person to do it but the person had the chance to say 'NO' They didn't though.

See if my employer told me to do something like that, I would have quit and reported them immediately.
It involved him slicing the dogs with a knife and shooting them with a shot gun. No normal person could do that the 70+ dogs at all.

 

[Rydia]

Although I do agree that killing them all was not the right choice to make, I don't entirely think that the anger at the employee who killed the dogs is needed. It's all a matter of what you know and the truth is we know nothing about said person. That I saw from the news article I read about this, there was no name of personal information on said "killer". It could have been a naive teenager, a desperate single parent. We make our claims about this person from an outside perspective, when in truth the person could have had to make a very difficult decision when told to do this. The employee could have initially refused this but had it further forced on them. The company did not contest the employee's claim the day after, which could mean alot of things. A couple of which could attest to said employees innocence. On that note, however, I will say that this is entirely based on a whole lot of 'could be' scenarios and I could be completely wrong. I just think hating everyone caught in the initial castnet is not a founded response especially with so little details.

As I said, the article I read clamed the company did not attest the employee's PTSD claim (in fact, they corrected a mistake in which he said he killed only 70 dogs). Personally, I think that means the company knew what kind of political blowback was coming and; realize there is no way of escaping it and have resigned to the inevitable, believe making this move of 'mercy' would help them in court, or (what I personally believe the most likely) simply wanted to pay off the employee so they would keep quiet.

Animal cruelty is still a crime though. If someone were working as a hitman, went into a house and slaughtered a family, no one would say "Oh he probably had a good reason." He needs to be charged with a crime for this no matter what and we can't excuse people from FELONIES just because of their circumstance. Him and the comany need to be prosecuted.

 

[Aerius Sygale]

Over one..hundred..huskies...KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS?! Please, pardon the big letters, but this hurts me very deeply inside, these are completely needless deaths, and my favourite domestic breed of dog is the Husky, so it only makes this that much worse...

What the hell... It isn't supposed to be like that... Every moment of their lives has to serve some purpose, like some slaves, otherwise they are killed!? Oh, God... How low will humankind go? This is just...terrible... They did nothing wrong to face the fate that they did.

Even though I know through history the human race have done horrible, unspeakable things, but this still sets me back, it is just so wrong... Though I feel like my faith in good in the human race as a whole may be even more negative, the only people's fault this is is theirs, so I can't take that out on others, as that too is wrong...

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

Although I do agree that killing them all was not the right choice to make, I don't entirely think that the anger at the employee who killed the dogs is needed. It's all a matter of what you know and the truth is we know nothing about said person. That I saw from the news article I read about this, there was no name of personal information on said "killer". It could have been a naive teenager, a desperate single parent. We make our claims about this person from an outside perspective, when in truth the person could have had to make a very difficult decision when told to do this. The employee could have initially refused this but had it further forced on them. The company did not contest the employee's claim the day after, which could mean alot of things. A couple of which could attest to said employees innocence. On that note, however, I will say that this is entirely based on a whole lot of 'could be' scenarios and I could be completely wrong. I just think hating everyone caught in the initial castnet is not a founded response especially with so little details.

As I said, the article I read clamed the company did not attest the employee's PTSD claim (in fact, they corrected a mistake in which he said he killed only 70 dogs). Personally, I think that means the company knew what kind of political blowback was coming and; realize there is no way of escaping it and have resigned to the inevitable, believe making this move of 'mercy' would help them in court, or (what I personally believe the most likely) simply wanted to pay off the employee so they would keep quiet.

This.

It's easy to make a judgement when all the facts aren't reported, for all we know the guy may have been forced into a position where if he didn't do what the company asked then he would have lost his job. It's easy to say you'd walk out of the job but at the end of the day if this person is relying on the money to support himself or even a family then he's stuck in a lose-lose situation, I very much doubt he could walk out of that job and straight into a new one with the way the economy is nowadays and decent jobs hard to come by. I know plenty of people who hate their jobs but have to stay in them because of they need the money for support.

I don't particularly see what prosecuting that particular individual is going to do, it's hardly in the public interest because the chances of him ever doing the same thing in his lifetime are next to null. All that it'll "look" like is that justice is served etc when the law isn't half as white as what people wish it is, it's not about justice. I doubt the guy walked into the job knowing at some point in his career he would have to slaughter dogs, if he hadn't have done it, someone else would have.

It was the company who made the decision to have the dogs killed so it should be the company who is prosecuted; they will have been the ones who chose what options to take and acted on them. The chances of the guy who did it having much of a say is slim.

 

[Aerius Sygale]

There's no justifying this in my mind. Killing over a hundred huskies because there is no one to have to be pulling along on sleds... And they had them all tied up!

They are innocent animals that didn't do anything wrong, there is no justifying brutally massacring them, at all.

And a number into three figures, not just a few, which even that would be awful, but this is just stooping too low, it is hard to take much more of this kind of behavior...

 

[Ethics]

I didn't say the trigger man should be excused of anything, because they shouldn't be. You're correct that what they did was a crime, through and through. I was only saying that attacking said person before evidence actually warrants isn't how we should be judging the situation. The company should be taking the majority of the heat here instead "OH GAWD I HOPE THIS PERSON ROTS/WE SHOULD SHOOT THIS PERSON LIKE THEY DID TO ALL THE DOGS "

I just hope whatever jury this person faces is no where near as biased. Yes, they are guilty. Yes, they should be punished for what they did. No, simply because they were forced into a situation (no matter the scenario) is not an excuse to commit said crime. I do, however, think your hate is mislead at this time.

 

[Valvalis]

Although I do agree that killing them all was not the right choice to make, I don't entirely think that the anger at the employee who killed the dogs is needed. It's all a matter of what you know and the truth is we know nothing about said person. That I saw from the news article I read about this, there was no name of personal information on said "killer". It could have been a naive teenager, a desperate single parent. We make our claims about this person from an outside perspective, when in truth the person could have had to make a very difficult decision when told to do this. The employee could have initially refused this but had it further forced on them. The company did not contest the employee's claim the day after, which could mean alot of things. A couple of which could attest to said employees innocence. On that note, however, I will say that this is entirely based on a whole lot of 'could be' scenarios and I could be completely wrong. I just think hating everyone caught in the initial castnet is not a founded response especially with so little details.

As I said, the article I read clamed the company did not attest the employee's PTSD claim (in fact, they corrected a mistake in which he said he killed only 70 dogs). Personally, I think that means the company knew what kind of political blowback was coming and; realize there is no way of escaping it and have resigned to the inevitable, believe making this move of 'mercy' would help them in court, or (what I personally believe the most likely) simply wanted to pay off the employee so they would keep quiet.

This.

It's easy to make a judgement when all the facts aren't reported, for all we know the guy may have been forced into a position where if he didn't do what the company asked then he would have lost his job. It's easy to say you'd walk out of the job but at the end of the day if this person is relying on the money to support himself or even a family then he's stuck in a lose-lose situation, I very much doubt he could walk out of that job and straight into a new one with the way the economy is nowadays and decent jobs hard to come by. I know plenty of people who hate their jobs but have to stay in them because of they need the money for support.

I agree with both of these, actually. To me it sounds exactly like the company was the true criminal behind this, passed their idea off onto the employee, and then compensated him to keep him from reporting them, because they either thought or knew that he was uncomfortable doing it. Both are at fault, but the company far more so; after all, they're the ones who hold the financial cards, and like has been said already, if it wasn't this one guy, someone else would have done it.

I mean, to put it into perspective, it's a tricky situation similar to what you get in a war: do you blame the soldier out in the field for agreeing to serve, or the politicians for negotiating it in the first place? The politicians don't have to step out onto the battlefield, so they don't care what happens there so long as they get the results they want; and I believe it was the same way with this company.

Meanwhile, the employee was put into a difficult position. Sure, there is a possibility that he wasn't bothered that much by the idea, and was gungho about it and is just lying about the PTSD; however, there's also a good possibility that he wasn't. And while I definitely would rather have quit than kill dogs, even if it meant I had to move in with family or something for a while to get back on my feet, if I was poor and was trying to pay for my child's medicine, I would be terrified of losing the job, and then the game changes.

Honestly, if you look at several, numerous jobs that exist out there, there are tons and tons of them that do unscrupulous things that the employees are not comfortable with, but that's the best or only job they can find. For example, I'm a vegetarian, but I have to sell packaged meals with meat in them to the customers at my work, and that makes me uncomfortable. However, it was the only job I could find, and I'm just barely hanging onto it as it is. And there are plenty of people who work at department stores where the clothes they sell were manufactured in sweat shops overseas. And plenty of people who work at retail stores that sell imported products, which for customers to buy imported products rapes the hell out of a home country's economy. Or people who work in the medical or automechanic fields, where you have to live with the knowledge that your company is profiting from auto wrecks and diseases. And anyone who works in a store/company that sells products containing palm oil, or the electronics made from "blood minerals" that are mined in Africa...don't even get me started.

It's all a matter of assigning responsibility to the most guilty people, I think. And IMO, any organization who can issue such an order without flinching, is the true bastard behind this; and while I agree the employee should be punished for helping them do something illegal (I read somewhere that animal cruelty is zero tolerance in Canada), the company owners should be punished even more harshly, for not only trying to satisfy their own greed by knowingly breaking the law, but getting someone else to do it for them. Rather than the CEO growing a pair and going out there to do it himself, if it was so damned important to him If CEOs and other big company execs the world over were held more accountable for the shit they start, the world would be a far, far better place.