But if they had not tested them on animals we would have had the procedures sooner and with less risk to humans ... somehow. But that was in the past and they want to concentrate on the possible future with all of the prior benefits still in place ... and of course able to be returned if the utopia is not what it was cracked up to be. This is why you see some of the leadership of the AR groups using animal derived medications in addition to the normal animal connections with their medical treatment. Most will use the modern medicine to improve their lives in order for their attempts to continue to prevent future generations from seeing even more improvements.
Satan Junior, you said before that you are involved in animal welfare? Since you're a resident of Johnston County, are you involved with the Animal Protection League? Just curious. In November, you attacked me on another forum for posting facts about the gas chamber, shortly after a similar disagreement I had with someone from that group. I'm just wondering why you are so upset when people want to help animals, if you are involved in animal welfare in some way. Please explain.
I support Animal Welfare, but am not presently an active participant in any organization due to time constraints. I believe you will find that you were not attacked, but your "facts" and connecting logic were questioned. I have no problem with people helping animals, but in the case of replacing the gas chamber, the cost comparison was not done accurately nor correctly. Thus the attempt to "help" the animals may have cut too far into the existing budget, which would not help the animals in the long run. In the real world there are practical limits on funding and budgets which must be considered in any such discussion. If you check the forum you will see that I supported your effort to make the change to euthanasia via injection as long as you made up the difference in the funding, which allows you to help the animals as much as you wish. It also does not rely on the rest of the taxpayers to pay extra because you believe the status quo is not adequate. I will continue to support any action that can work without needing to raise taxes or rob another program when there is a budget crisis in all areas of the government at this time.
So you read my cost comparisons??? Weird, the only person I presented to is Ernie Wilkinson. What exactly do you think is incorrect?? The numbers have been verified!
No, on the board you only provided links to the general cost comparison for setting up both systems from scratch. I have yet to see any valid figures for this situation, but I have asked for them ... repeatedly. If only one person has seen the figures, then only that person has verified them? If you share them it would be easier to garner support, providing they show the proposal is actually less expensive than the current situation. How about it, what are the figures and what do they show us?
This is your reply to my request for the data. The range seems to be far from specific to Johnston County even with the recent edit .......
From my post following, which was not edited, we see that the number of animals involved was changed and the references to the general cost comparisons were deleted. Why would this be done so long after the fact? http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=658&highlight= Which compares how to the current method cost in the county? That would be a "comparison", which was the basis for the question. This would be more of a sub-contracted situation if a veterinarian is required as opposed to the current situation? So they spend more or less than the $5760 - $12,000 per year your estimate covers? Your estimates take into consideration the cost of the administrative functions using a similar number of animals? This figure is what percentage of the current budget for the county shelter? But you cannot list them here because ...? These are excerpts from a fairly recent newspaper article on the subject: (my emphasis added) http://www.clevelandpost.com/news/2004101400591.html By Juli Denning and John Cate Cleveland Post Staff October 14, 2004 Calling the gas chamber “antiquated,” Dr. Ansede stated, “What everyone needs to be aware of is, we can get into the 21st century. It is not so cost prohibitive. “People can pressure the legislature for funding in the budget to make it (euthanasia) more humane.
I found another post which seemed to have been edited for effect ... not a big credibility booster given I quoted the original post directly in the following posts .......
This is another discussion best laid to rest. If the Albertson Bill and Bill 511 get put into law, we will no longer need to argue about how these poor animals die and how to prevent the numbers going into the shelter to begin with. Satan Jr. As far as cost comparisons, they are irrelevant, there have been offers to provide the difference in funding between what this county spent on the chamber and the cost of lethal injection. This was turned down. It is not about money, or the change would have happened.
What groups made the offer? Unless there was a concern the groups could not fulfill their part of the agreement there should be few problems with such an implimentation. Of course, the county attorney would be the final word on that opinion.
JCAPL made the offer. It is a viable one. The county did not doubt we could keep up with the funding.
I would not know since JCAPL does not seem to be listed in the registry of non-profit organizations, thus the financials are not on file. I imagine there could be a problem if the assets are not sufficient to make such a guaranty, but without any data it is only a possible reason.
But you said that you never saw it, so how would you know if it is accurate? I only posted a link for you to see figures from AH and HSUS. The local report is 9 pages, in a table that cannot be posted here. I offered to email my info, but you would not give your email address. I will be more than happy to meet you in person to give you a copy. How about Java Joes at 40/42? Or you can PM your mailing address. The worksheet was provided by the Humane Society of the United States, and local figures were filled in. These numbers were obtained from Johnston County Human Resources, the gas company which sells CO to the shelter, a medical supplier, a pharmaceutical company which sells the euthanasia drug, and a local vet. All of these numbers are accurate. The first report was submitted on December 21, 2004. That was based on 4800 animals euthanized, which is the figure I was given. I had to adjust this recently, after finding the actual number reported to the Department of Heath and Human Services was only 3081. This is why I edited the number in my old post. The bottom line is this: THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL MONEY NEEDED. The totals are less for lethal injection than what is already being spent with CO. In one version, a veterinarian is used with one assistant. Second version uses a vet tech with one assistant. I only counted the hourly wage of one AC officer performing gas euthanasia, when it actually takes THREE according to witnesses. So it is more than fair. And still cheaper to use lethal injection. There could be slight variations based on which brand of drug is used. Sources of costs were listed for verification by anyone who reads it. Anyone who wants more info can PM me.
Because the comparison referenced was a general one for setting up a system from scratch and not the conversion of an existing system, as noted by the range of costs given in the posts. And for reasons I have explained. I will have to think about that .... Sounds reasonable to this point. Along with a couple of other sentences, but what is a little editing betwwen friends? . This will take some thinking and I have a meeting in 15 minutes do I have to return to this, but I see some big questions. Good.
Why don't you ask Ernie for a copy? 934-8474 at the shelter. By the way, what is your interest in all of this?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you will have to have a veterinarian in order to be able to purchase the drugs. A certified technician can perform the euthanasia but the controlled substance laws require that a licensed doctor or veterinarian sign off on the log and sign for the purchase, do you not? There would also have to be a secure storage location for the same regulatory requirements. In a rough examination of the data presented in this paragraph, the one Animal Control officer would have to work fewer hours, ie have their pay removed from the equation, in order to allow for the hiring of the two new employees, which would be part time? Unless you remove the cost of the Animal Control officer's wages from the budget there would be a significant increase in the cost. Which officer's did you propose to have their hours cut in the plan you presented, and by how many hours a week? What is the procedure for decreasing the hours of a county employee, BTW? Darn typos ....
I am always interested in Truth, Justice, and The American Way!!!! Hiiii Yooooooo Silverrrrrr Awayyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!! Sorry, I got carried away ... why should more people NOT be interested in this? Does it not involve public funds? Does it not involve public employees? Does it not pose an interest to the general public to ensure the best is done by the public employees, with public monies, for the benefit of the public? The cost/benefit study would be critical for this situation and it seems the data is a bit flawed in the application presented.
How about the start up costs? This is an older document but one that convers just this type of situation. You have a choice of PDF or Word format :wink: http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/euthanasia/HEPP/HEPP Proposal.pdf http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/euthanasia/HEPP/HEPP Proposal.doc Total estimated start up costs: (approximately) $1719
What if someone donated the start up costs and the shelter could offset even more costs by selling the chamber? BTW to get back animal research, there is never going to be a way for drugs ever to be tested in a computer model. There will never in our lifetime be a modeled substitute for animal pre-clinical testing.
