The Humane Society of Elkhart County has issued a statement condemning the controversial deaths of two cats put into a trash compactor at a local RV factory.
The statement read, in part, that “crushing an animal in a compactor is not an approved method of humane euthanasia and does not meet any accepted standards.
They also state that the case reveals a troubling gap between what’s “legal” and what’s “ethical” and they urge the community and lawmakers to pursue more defined standards and more humane responses in all animal cases.
Last week, the Elkhart County Prosecutor announced she would not criminally charge the three men involved in the cats’ deaths.
2 comments
Jayco needs to make a substantial payment to the Elkhart Humane Society to make this go away
Well, I know this is a year old, according to 312 IAC 9-10-11-(j)-(2) for nuisance animals,
(2) An animal must be euthanized [my emphasis] with the:
(A) safest;
(B) quickest; and
(C) most painless;
available method as recommended and approved by the division of fish and wildlife.
I didn’t see “trash compactor” as a recommended and approved method for euthanizing a nuisance animal. While citing that an animal may be trapped, Indiana has extremely rigid laws under this nuisance law for trapping and euthanizing animals. Despite the fact that animals may only be euthanized by strictly defined methods, she ignored those and instead said she felt the way they were killed was better than being trapped by one of the few methods legal for trapping an animal. These are legally two different things.
Further, feral cats are considered “domestic animals” by law. Although a property owner can kill a cat under § 35-46-3-12-(a)-2 “in accordance with guidelines adopted by the humane society, animal control agency, or governmental entity operating the animal shelter or other animal impounding facility.” Again, a trash compactor is not recognized as one of these methods.
Finally, reading further, we do see that § 35-46-3-12-(e) says that “It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused person: (1) reasonably believes the conduct was necessary to:(B) protect the property of the accused person from destruction or substantial damage;” but the three employees (who were the accused) were not the owners of the destroyed property and, in fact, the owners publicly stated they did not agree with what the employees did. Vote Ms. Becker out.