Airport security dog shot dead

monkeysnapper

http://news.sky.com/story/grizz-the-airport-security-dog-shot-after-escape-10804352

Very sad story , I can't see how they couldn't have used a tranquilizer on dog .

cnocbui

Well they 'could' have used a tranquilizer rifle, but not surprisingly for an airport, they likely didn't have one. It would have likely taken hours to find and acquire one along with someone to operate it. The tranquilzer dose has to carefully selected for the animal being targeted.

They did the right thing.

VonVix

With stories like this, I always feel there are holes and missing valuable information that would make the circumstances more understandable, be it the choice for shooting the dog or the cause for the dog not returning back to one of the handlers. I wonder how long the dog had been loose for as I don't think it mentions it in the article? Very sad and probably a preventable death.

cnocbui

VonVix wrote: »

With stories like this, I always feel there are holes and missing valuable information that would make the circumstances more understandable, be it the choice for shooting the dog or the cause for the dog not returning back to one of the handlers. I wonder how long the dog had been loose for as I don't think it mentions it in the article? Very sad and probably a preventable death.

The dog had already been loose for 3 hours and had caused the delay of more than a dozen flights.

Callum Irvine, ‎head of veterinary services at the New Zealand Veterinary Association, said he "absolutely" understood why people were upset.

"It's a terrible situation. But I'm sure the decision wasn't made lightly and fundamentally when it comes to these types of decisions, the most important thing is to protect human wellbeing."

It also would have been "implausible" for a tranquiliser to be used.

"Dart guns in themselves are very rarely used these days," he said.

"Most veterinary clinics, if not all veterinary clinics in this country, don't have access to a dart gun. The only place you might find a dart gun would be in a zoo."

Tranquilisers were only accurate at close range.

It isn't necessarily very easy to sedate an animal that's on the run and in distress like that. In that situation you can actually make the problem worse because the animal becomes partially sedated. It isn't always the perfect solution it might appear to be.

vicwatson

Sensationalist post title

Manach

Having the PR types try to justify and spin the shooting of a straying dog for the convience of airport authorities does rather leave a negative impression of the incident.

cnocbui

What, you don't believe the head of Veterinary Association of New Zealand?

That isn't PR or spin, that's the considered opinion of a professional.

easygoing1982

vicwatson wrote: »

Sensationalist post title

Was a dog not shot dead?

hungry hypno toad

RIP Grizz.

frag420

Unconfirmed reports suggest the dog was a member of Al Qae-Nine....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

frag420 wrote: »

Unconfirmed reports suggest the dog was a member of Al Qae-Nine....

Your coat... get it...

Manach

cnocbui wrote: »

What, you don't believe the head of Veterinary Association of New Zealand?

That isn't PR or spin, that's the considered opinion of a professional.

You know that that person well then or just have a naive belief in everything that a spokesperson spouts. To swallow the line every thing was done marks a very credulous fellow who has scant understanding of the economic motives behind the decision. Which is ironic given the mountains of awful PR this has generated.

muddypaws

So the dog wasn't actually a danger to the public, but was causing delays. Sums up the world really. Poor dog.

muddypaws

cnocbui wrote: »

The dog had already been loose for 3 hours and had caused the delay of more than a dozen flights.

The dog had been loose for 3 hours, but for 2 of those it was dark and they couldn't see where he was. So they spent an hour trying to catch him, then decided to kill him rather than inconvenience some holidaymakers.

ganmo

if they managed to catch the dog it wouldn't of become a sniffer dog after an incident like that so the costs of training the dog are gone anyway.

tranqualiser guns are specialised equipment and they dont have a large effective range so the vet would have to get close to the dog, which i imagine on an airfield (no cover with wide open spaces) wouldn't be easy.

now imagine if a human was running around the airfield for 3 hours, even in ireland he'd likely be shot

muddypaws

ganmo wrote: »

now imagine if a human was running around the airfield for 3 hours, even in ireland he'd likely be shot

Naw, an adult that was a perceived terrorist threat, yes would probably be shot, a child, lost and confused, no way would they shoot. This was a 10 month old pup that hadn't shown any terrorist tendencies or even any aggression according to the report. Before I get accused of anthromorphism, I am just continuing the analogy in the post I quoted.

ganmo

muddypaws wrote: »

Naw, an adult that was a perceived terrorist threat, yes would probably be shot, a child, lost and confused, no way would they shoot. This was a 10 month old pup that hadn't shown any terrorist tendencies or even any aggression according to the report. Before I get accused of anthromorphism, I am just continuing the analogy in the post I quoted.

if the person wasn't following the officials instructions, actively running away from them! they wouldn't ask to see their birthcert

muddypaws

ganmo wrote: »

if the person wasn't following the officials instructions, actively running away from them! they wouldn't ask to see their birthcert

Yeah, cos you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 10 year old child and an adult by sight

newacc2015

muddypaws wrote: »

So the dog wasn't actually a danger to the public, but was causing delays. Sums up the world really. Poor dog.

Do you know it is very hard to use tranquilizer properly? You have to estimate the proper dose, be close to the animal, wait for it to kick in etc. People choose to shot longer ran animals, as tranquilizers are not very effective.

I doubt all the tens thousands of people who have had their flight delayed would have been as understanding as you. I would hazard a guess there be a few people on the flight waiting to get home to a sick child, dying relative or a wife in labour. I doubt they would be happy to be hitting in an airport for another 6-12 hours until the dog was tranquilized while their loved ones died as they didn't make it due to the dog

cnocbui

muddypaws wrote: »

The dog had been loose for 3 hours, but for 2 of those it was dark and they couldn't see where he was. So they spent an hour trying to catch him, then decided to kill him rather than inconvenience some holidaymakers.

So how about you give a figure for the number of people who should be 'inconvenienced' and the financial cost incurred you think where it would have been acceptable to shoot the dog?

At the time the dog was shot, over a dozen flights had been delayed, so that's say 150 per plane, so 1,800 people 'inconvenienced'. No wait, that's not right, because a delayed flight causes at least equal problems at the other end due to plane and crew turn around, so 3,600 people inconvenienced. No, that's not right, because if a couple of those planes was headed for a hub like Dubai, or Singapore, and the passengers were booked on connecting flights elsewhere, then those connecting flights could well be held up also and so everyone on those connecting flights would end up with a delay, so we are probably at another 1,200 if two A380's were held up, so now it's 4,800 people inconvenienced. Then there are the inevitable consequences for relatives and other people tasked with meeting some of those people at the terminus for their trips, so 5,500 conservatively by this point.

The costs, even for these 12 flights would have been staggering.

Given the time this happened, I think it not unlikely they would have had to wait for the zoo to open and then track down a vet and a tranquilizer gun and then get them to the airport. That would have been another 4-5 hours at least and probably at least another 140 flights cancelled, given they have 560 flights a day at Auckland and assuming an 8hr curfew, that's 35 per hour.

So if we are at 5,500 people 'inconvenienced' for 12 flights, we need to add another 64,160 people 'inconvenienced'

... We are at about 70,000 people 'inconvenienced' at this point. I couldn't begin to estimate the cost but it would likely be many millions of dollars.

Shoot the dog.

monkeysnapper

vicwatson wrote: »

Sensationalist post title

Uuuugg..... it was a security dog that was shot... And it died , did I miss something ....

What would make you happy??

con___manx1

My dog is 10 months old and is not great at coming when he is called.
I think this is shocking.
Screw the people waiting on there flight or the airlines lost money.
everything is about money now a days. That's just the way the world is.

muddypaws

newacc2015 wrote: »

Do you know it is very hard to use tranquilizer properly? You have to estimate the proper dose, be close to the animal, wait for it to kick in etc. People choose to shot longer ran animals, as tranquilizers are not very effective.

I doubt all the tens thousands of people who have had their flight delayed would have been as understanding as you. I would hazard a guess there be a few people on the flight waiting to get home to a sick child, dying relative or a wife in labour. I doubt they would be happy to be hitting in an airport for another 6-12 hours until the dog was tranquilized while their loved ones died as they didn't make it due to the dog

Can you please point out where I said anything about using a tranquilizer gun?

**** happens, planes get delayed for all sorts of reasons.

muddypaws

cnocbui wrote: »

So how about you give a figure for the number of people who should be 'inconvenienced' and the financial cost incurred you think where it would have been acceptable to shoot the dog?

At the time the dog was shot, over a dozen flights had been delayed, so that's say 150 per plane, so 1,800 people 'inconvenienced'. No wait, that's not right, because a delayed flight causes at least equal problems at the other end due to plane and crew turn around, so 3,600 people inconvenienced. No, that's not right, because if a couple of those planes was headed for a hub like Dubai, or Singapore, and the passengers were booked on connecting flights elsewhere, then those connecting flights could well be held up also and so everyone on those connecting flights would end up with a delay, so we are probably at another 1,200 if two A380's were held up, so now it's 4,800 people inconvenienced. Then there are the inevitable consequences for relatives and other people tasked with meeting some of those people at the terminus for their trips, so 5,500 conservatively by this point.

The costs, even for these 12 flights would have been staggering.

Given the time this happened, I think it not unlikely they would have had to wait for the zoo to open and then track down a vet and a tranquilizer gun and then get them to the airport. That would have been another 4-5 hours at least and probably at least another 140 flights cancelled, given they have 560 flights a day at Auckland and assuming an 8hr curfew, that's 35 per hour.

So if we are at 5,500 people 'inconvenienced' for 12 flights, we need to add another 64,160 people 'inconvenienced'

... We are at about 70,000 people 'inconvenienced' at this point. I couldn't begin to estimate the cost but it would likely be many millions of dollars.

Shoot the dog.

As I said sums up the world, inconvenience people or kill an animal, choice made. An animal that could have saved human lives, as the other dogs that work at airports around the world do.

cnocbui

Must be a lovely view of the world from so high on your white horse.

muddypaws

cnocbui wrote: »

Must be a lovely view of the world from so high on your white horse.

Thats a bit racist, my horse is a nice bay.

It's not acceptable to keep delaying flights, people have a lot of money spent and have connecting flights, people travelling for business and need to get to meetings, people have holidays paid for. How long do people here expect them to severely inconvienence 1000's of people for a dog? On top of that the cost to the airlines would be eye watering, these are businesses who employ a lot of people and can't be just losing money. Blinkers need to be taken off.

AryaStark

ganmo wrote: »

if they managed to catch the dog it wouldn't of become a sniffer dog after an incident like that so the costs of training the dog are gone anyway.

tranqualiser guns are specialised equipment and they dont have a large effective range so the vet would have to get close to the dog, which i imagine on an airfield (no cover with wide open spaces) wouldn't be easy.

now imagine if a human was running around the airfield for 3 hours, even in ireland he'd likely be shot

What a ridiculous post. And what have the costs of training got to do with anything.
I don't know what to think as I do not have all the details but I feel sorry for the dog. I would not find him disposable because his training was now a waste.

frag420

Vivian Most Tongue-lashing wrote: »

Your coat... get it...

Worst chat up line ever...

Graces7

newacc2015 wrote: »

Do you know it is very hard to use tranquilizer properly? You have to estimate the proper dose, be close to the animal, wait for it to kick in etc. People choose to shot longer ran animals, as tranquilizers are not very effective.

I doubt all the tens thousands of people who have had their flight delayed would have been as understanding as you. I would hazard a guess there be a few people on the flight waiting to get home to a sick child, dying relative or a wife in labour. I doubt they would be happy to be hitting in an airport for another 6-12 hours until the dog was tranquilized while their loved ones died as they didn't make it due to the dog

ganmo

AryaStark wrote: »

What a ridiculous post. And what have the costs of training got to do with anything.
I don't know what to think as I do not have all the details but I feel sorry for the dog. I would not find him disposable because his training was now a waste.

It was raised in the article

Graces7

cnocbui wrote: »

So how about you give a figure for the number of people who should be 'inconvenienced' and the financial cost incurred you think where it would have been acceptable to shoot the dog?

At the time the dog was shot, over a dozen flights had been delayed, so that's say 150 per plane, so 1,800 people 'inconvenienced'. No wait, that's not right, because a delayed flight causes at least equal problems at the other end due to plane and crew turn around, so 3,600 people inconvenienced. No, that's not right, because if a couple of those planes was headed for a hub like Dubai, or Singapore, and the passengers were booked on connecting flights elsewhere, then those connecting flights could well be held up also and so everyone on those connecting flights would end up with a delay, so we are probably at another 1,200 if two A380's were held up, so now it's 4,800 people inconvenienced. Then there are the inevitable consequences for relatives and other people tasked with meeting some of those people at the terminus for their trips, so 5,500 conservatively by this point.

The costs, even for these 12 flights would have been staggering.

Given the time this happened, I think it not unlikely they would have had to wait for the zoo to open and then track down a vet and a tranquilizer gun and then get them to the airport. That would have been another 4-5 hours at least and probably at least another 140 flights cancelled, given they have 560 flights a day at Auckland and assuming an 8hr curfew, that's 35 per hour.

So if we are at 5,500 people 'inconvenienced' for 12 flights, we need to add another 64,160 people 'inconvenienced'

... We are at about 70,000 people 'inconvenienced' at this point. I couldn't begin to estimate the cost but it would likely be many millions of dollars.

Shoot the dog.

Excuse me, but if dogs are being used all the time at airports why are there no facilities to treat them or save them in such a case? Not rocket science to know that at some time something may go wrong that needs sedation?

Number crunching does not impress.

cnocbui

Graces7 wrote: »

Excuse me, but if dogs are being used all the time at airports why are there no facilities to treat them or save them in such a case? Not rocket science to know that at some time something may go wrong that needs sedation?

Number crunching does not impress.

A tranquilizer rifle at every airport on earth along with a 24/7 vet to work out the dosage for an event that happens at a single airport maybe once every 4 decades? What a completely unrealistic suggestion.

AryaStark

cnocbui wrote: »

A tranquilizer rifle at every airport on earth along with a 24/7 vet to work out the dosage for an event that happens at a single airport maybe once every 4 decades? What a completely unrealistic suggestion.

Lets say that there are dogs in the airport... then they should have the dose that is required for the dogs that are working there. Its not rocket science... just evaluate the dogs you have working there and have the correct dose available for emergency situations.

tk123

cnocbui wrote: »

A tranquilizer rifle at every airport on earth along with a 24/7 vet to work out the dosage for an event that happens at a single airport maybe once every 4 decades? What a completely unrealistic suggestion.

You do realize that being on call 24x7 means you relax and have your phone nearby and have to respond within a certain time.. and take it in turns with your colleagues right? In my vet's case they have an answering service and they rotate with other practices..so hardly unrealistic for an airport/customs/police to have vet available on call the same way a civilian like me does?

As for the dosage I'd say its like everything else we give our pets with instructions included eg 10ml per 10kg or whatever or move the plunger two lines - it's already been worked out and they'd have a fair idea of the weight of certain breeds.

cnocbui

AryaStark wrote: »

Lets say that there are dogs in the airport... then they should have the dose that is required for the dogs that are working there. Its not rocket science... just evaluate the dogs you have working there and have the correct dose available for emergency situations.

What are you going to do to ensure that every airport in Ireland is appropriately equipped?

AryaStark

cnocbui wrote: »

What are you going to do to ensure that every airport in Ireland is appropriately equipped?

Me Nothing because I am a computer engineer... I happen to love dogs which is why I am commenting on this thread and why I follow the Animals & Pet Issues. I do not work in the airport or security and neither am I a vet.
What would you like me to do as a computer engineer.
Also what are you going to do to make sure that it does not happen seeing as you think it is a waste of time and resources? (a stupid question like yours deserves a stupid reply like mine)

tk123

AryaStark wrote: »

What would you like me to do as a computer engineer.
)

Throw together an excel sheet there to calculate the dosage :pac:

AryaStark

tk123 wrote: »

Throw together an excel sheet there to calculate the dosage :pac:

See now that I could do!

cnocbui

AryaStark wrote: »

Me Nothing because I am a computer engineer... I happen to love dogs which is why I am commenting on this thread and why I follow the Animals & Pet Issues. I do not work in the airport or security and neither am I a vet.
What would you like me to do as a computer engineer.
Also what are you going to do to make sure that it does not happen seeing as you think it is a waste of time and resources? (a stupid question like yours deserves a stupid reply like mine)

Well I thought you could start a campaign, get a petition going, lobby the minister for transport.

Given 10,000 dogs are destroyed in Ireland every year, the outrage at this incident seems disproportionate, but go ahead, get on with it. I am sure some of the other deeply concerned posters on this thread would be more than happy to help you out.

Each day, more than 30 dogs are destroyed in Ireland, with local authority shelters putting down more than 10,000 Irish dogs each year. Almost all of these dogs are healthy, companionable animals who simply lack a good home.

AryaStark

cnocbui wrote: »

Well I thought you could start a campaign, get a petition going, lobby the minister for transport.

Given 10,000 dogs are destroyed in Ireland every year, the outrage at this incident seems disproportionate, but go ahead, get on with it. I am sure some of the other deeply concerned posters on this thread would be more than happy to help you out.

I was half way through a long post reply to this when I remembered that I do not care what you think and I do not have to justify myself to you or explain about how I help dog rescues etc

muddypaws

I was just reading a report there recently about an obese man, who struggled to fit into the seat on a plane. The flight was delayed as they didn't have a seatbelt extension big enough for him, so they had to try and source one. Planes get delayed for all kinds of reasons.

DBB

Is there some reason why people have to debate their opposing viewpoints whilst being bitchy and personally jabbing at one another?
Or can we all behave like adults now and show a bit of respect for one another, as per the sticky that makes it a condition of the use of this forum to post with some modicum of mutual respect?
Yes. I prefer the 2nd option.
Thanks,
DBB

muddypaws

People illegally loose in an airport, on a runway - not shot. Even in Ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0422/695979-wallace-daly-guilty-over-shannon-airport-charges/

ganmo

muddypaws wrote: »

People illegally loose in an airport, on a runway - not shot. Even in Ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0422/695979-wallace-daly-guilty-over-shannon-airport-charges/

How long were they airside? 5-10 minutes? It's a long way short of 3 hours

Nekarsulm

DBB wrote: »

Is there some reason why people have to debate their opposing viewpoints whilst being bitchy and personally jabbing at one another?
Or can we all behave like adults now and show a bit of respect for one another, as per the sticky that makes it a condition of the use of this forum to post with some modicum of mutual respect?
Yes. I prefer the 2nd option.
Thanks,
DBB

Highly unlikely in this forum!

The problem with delayed airplanes, is that each delay has a knock-on effect.
If your flight is late leaving, then its going to cause problems for its next turnaround also.

me_right_one

muddypaws wrote: »

As I said sums up the world, inconvenience people or kill an animal, choice made. An animal that could have saved human lives, as the other dogs that work at airports around the world do.

This is not abortion we're talking about. While I fell sorry for the poor dog, do people not realise he could have wandered onto a runway and caused 330 people to burn to death?

It was a horrible, but necessary thing to do. Unlike other things, this was not the symptom of a throwaway society.

DBB

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Highly unlikely in this forum!

Nekarsulm, can you not see that comments like that only add fuel to the fire?
Highlighting my on-thread warning and then stabbing a jab like that in is out of order. If you don't like the forum, stop using it.
As per any on-thread warning, and I shouldn't have to say this, do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks.
DBB

muddypaws

me_right_one wrote: »

This is not abortion we're talking about. While I fell sorry for the poor dog, do people not realise he could have wandered onto a runway and caused 330 people to burn to death?

It was a horrible, but necessary thing to do. Unlike other things, this was not the symptom of a throwaway society.

What a weird thing to post.

Not sure how 330 people could have burnt to death when there were no flights in or out?

kylith

It's not just holiday makers on flights. If you missed seeing your father for the last time because your flight was delayed while they spent hours getting a tranquilliser gun to dart a dog you'd probably be livid that they hadn't shot it.

Now, you could say that I don't know that someone was on their way to visit their dying father, but you don't know that someone wasn't, or that someone wasn't travelling for surgery, or that one of the planes wasn't carrying urgently needed equipment, or even that if caused someone to miss a connecting flight which could have had unknown consequences for them.

Yes, it sounds cruel but it's more than 'a few planes being delayed'; it's thousands or tens of thousands of people, tens of thousands of dollars, and who knows what other consequences and that's just for those three hours. How long should they have chased the dog for? This wasn't a case of 'dog loose = shoot it'; they'd tried to catch it for three hours using every trick in the book.

ganmo

muddypaws wrote: »

What a weird thing to post.

Not sure how 330 people could have burnt to death when there were no flights in or out?

I'm picturing a die hard 2 scenario