Despatching wounded animals hit by cars
- Thread starter Wodan94
- Start date
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
mereside
Well-Known Member
cannot answer the halal question but the conversations in humberside on dispatching are that the chap running the firearms dept wants armed responce to deal with these situations instead of stalkers so will see how this pans out. I have attended a few now in humberside its never nice to do but it needs doing especially when faced with a doe about to give birth to kids, atb wayne
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
If Humberside are wanting the ARU's to undertake humane dispatch of RTC wild / domestic animals then I would suggest they supply them with 410 shotguns. VERY effective and safe tool for the job IMHO
ATB
CVK
ATB
CVK
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
I know what your saying Wayne...but...the ARU's can usually get there much quicker than the vet on call. As such its a good solution for the animal in distress
ATB
CVK
jimbo1984
Well-Known Member
I agree the .410 would be excellent for that purpose however how many millions would have to be spent training officers in thier use ..... :/
fangler
Well-Known Member
+1. Nothing against religious beliefs but In killing something I go by how I would prefer to be killed (sounds daft, but hey), and a slit throat is not one-rather shot or stunned and dispatched. However if no other method for putting an animal down Is available then a cut to the throat is appropriate (to me).
Absolutely not. If the barbaric practice was done for any other reason than 'religion' it would have been banned many years ago.
I cannot believe we live in a society that allows such things to go on.
Ruminants have a vertebral artery that can go on supplying the brain with oxygen for minutes.
If you shoot them or stun with a bolt they are insensitive before they hear the bang.
Abhorrent thing to do to any animal.
african jack
Well-Known Member
correct +1
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
Si
Well-Known Member
It's been done since the beginning of time, since before Islam was even thought of and before guns were invented.
Would you as a bystander to an RTA rather see an animal have it's head smashed in with a tyre iron or a swift clean cut to the throat?
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
nicholiath
Well-Known Member
police could of used pistol through top of skull into length of neck wouldn't have exited simples
Try looking on YouTube for halal slaughter and decide yourself. I suspect that many bystanders would be appalled! The cut may be swift and clean but the arterial spurts can be alarming to say the least and they can be conscious for some time. Tyre iron gets my vote if there are folk about although I would stun (tyre iron) then bleed
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
Si
Well-Known Member
The scientific facts
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.
The Western method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.
The Western method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
Si
Well-Known Member
We all know that a firearm is the best method for HD, but not always as readily available as a knife... Like the example in the OP
Forget the Halal argument for now, that's another discussion... for the purpose of dispatching an injured animal, if you turned up at the scene of a RTA with a hefty looking knife it looks better than telling everyone to "stand back, I know what I'm doing" as you brandish a claw hammer from the boot of your car.
"Dad what's he gonna do with that knife?"
"he's going to cut the poorly animals neck"
as opposed to;
"Dad why's that man got a hammer?"
"he's going to bash that deers head in with it"
Forget the Halal argument for now, that's another discussion... for the purpose of dispatching an injured animal, if you turned up at the scene of a RTA with a hefty looking knife it looks better than telling everyone to "stand back, I know what I'm doing" as you brandish a claw hammer from the boot of your car.
"Dad what's he gonna do with that knife?"
"he's going to cut the poorly animals neck"
as opposed to;
"Dad why's that man got a hammer?"
"he's going to bash that deers head in with it"
Last edited:
Cernunnos
Well-Known Member
Unless you are Muslim and said the customary Islamic prayer, all you did was cut the deers throat. You are confusing what you did with religious slaughter. If, as you say, the deer was clearly in incredible pain, then whether you cut it's throat or bludgeoned it, is academic. It's still in pain. The end result will still prevent further suffering for the animal. Dispatching an animal as humanely as possible is reliant on knowledge of physiology and technique, irrespective of the method used.
Good luck with your degree course.
Good luck with your degree course.
Similar threads
