Non-standard Dispatch Methods - Lethal Injection

I'm starting this thread in hopes of reaching some understanding regarding dispatch methods, or objections thereto, that have been, and are, suggested by some users of these boards. In particular, at this juncture, injecting skunks with non-standard chemicals to achieve death.

Many trapping sites won't even touch this subject, but we've never been afraid of it here. Dispatching animals is part of what we do, and there is no sense in pretending it is not.

We have discussed a number of dispatch methods including blunt force, dislocation, asphyxiation, cardiac trauma, shooting and drowning. Sometimes it is mentioned that whichever group is the national representative of veterinarians (sorry I don't know which one it is) has issued "approved" methods for euthanizing animals. I dare say than many, if not most, times our methods do not meet their criteria. So we are out of luck from the git go.

Now, there are those among us who believe we should not promote the use of some non-standard chemicals for injecting skunks -- even though it results in a very quick death. I am curious to know why. Some have said that this will not sit well with the general public. Despite the fact that a whole lot of folks find any sort of death offensive, is this worse that some of the other methods we suggest?

I'm crawling way out on a limb here but… How about the suggestion that we shoot animals in the heart, lungs, liver, or any place else other than in the brain. From a "humane" standpoint, a bullet in the brain causes immediate "death" although involuntary muscle contractions can continue for some time. Shooting an animal anywhere other than in the brain, does not bring about death as rapidly, although a properly placed shot can bring about death quickly.

Mind you, I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but we don't seem to have any trouble with people suggesting a "lung" shot to kill coyotes (or even skunks for that matter). But when we start suggesting non-standard chemicals for lethal injection, concern becomes evident.

Where shall we draw the line?

-- Hal

I inject most everything with na-pentothal. But it is a controled substance and have to have a liscense to get it. It's also expensive. I still beleive it the most humane way.

Okay. But what about the guy who doesn't have a license? I don't know what kind of license you have, or what you have to go through to get it, but it would probably be impractical to recommend everyone get the license just to inject a few skunks.

Also, in regards to the most humane way, are you opposed to shooting animals any place other than in the brain?

-- Hal

I know I'm new here and I realize that I am new to trapping but I feel kind of responsible for this thread because of my "skunks" post.

FYI Hal, the Veterinary Medical Assoociation or VMA, is one of the national associations of veterinarians. The American Animal Hospital Association or AAHA is the other national association of veterinarians.

I'd much rather dispatch an animal with a bullet to the brain than by any other means. To me it is much more humane than blugeoning.

How is traumatizing the brain with a bullet any more humane that traumatizing it with a heavy blunt object?

-- Hal

I do the shot to the brain. It seems to be the best way in my opinon.


T-R

Personal preference. I realize both cause trauma to the brain. Maybe its from my farm background. When we butcher animals (beef, hogs) we down them with a bullet to the brain not with a blow to the head with a club.

Then we will assume you mis-spoke when you said you found shooting an animal "much more humane than blugeoning."

These are some of the problems I am trying to clear up around here. I don't want us to be found hypocritical in our recommendations.

-- Hal

Yeah Hal you are correct. When you think about it one way is not more humane than the other. Both (bullet to the brain or blungeoning with a club)are humane ways to dispatch an animal. Its personal preference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. But what about the guy who doesn't have a license? I don't know what kind of license you have, or what you have to go through to get it, but it would probably be impractical to recommend everyone get the license just to inject a few skunks.

The wife is a vet, youre right. it would be impractical if not impossible for most to get.


Also, in regards to the most humane way, are you opposed to shooting animals any place other than in the brain?

I have probally used every way known to man to dispatch. NO I am not opposed to shooting any place other than the brain.

I can't think of any way for most (I repeat, most) wild animals to die in nature that isn't far more brutal than what we do. Only a very few will die of a heart attack in their sleep. The rest will die of starvation, disease or injury most of which will take days or weeks to kill the animal.
I have put down many critters from pigs to coyotes with a .22, I switched to a .45 years ago for domestic animals. I use a blow to the head for coyotes followed by cardiac compression and I feel this is a better way to dispatch coyotes than the 22 to the brain. If they move when you shoot or if you miss by as little as a 1/2" it can make a big difference. Domistic animals usually will stand still for you and allow you approach very closely. For coyotes and fox, I control their head with my catch pole and then deliver the blow, followed by the cardiac compression. Death is very swift and there is no thrashing or any of the other things that occur with a shot to the head. I will use acetone for skunks, there is too much info supporting it to ignore it. Just my 2 cents worth.
Dan

Guys, I know the antis are watching,I believe the general public could care less about what method is used just as long as it is preceived as humane,is a bullet to the head any more painless than blunt force trauma, I doubt it,but it isnt precieved as such, so it must be awful as for chemical injection, just stay within the law.

Lets face it death is a part of our trade and you can't please everyone, and every trapper may not use the same dispatch method, but all methods dicussed in this thread I believe are quick and humane, just a matter of personal choice.

My opinion is that there is no difference in shooting, clubbing, drowner rig, needle in lungs or whatever. I say do what you got to do to get the job done. My old trapper neighbor puts a stick behind their neck, stands on it and lifts the tail until the neck snaps.( smaller animals ) I have seen him do it and it is just as quick as anything else. For me there is no emotion in the process. I have a job to to and I do it.

For me it is the question weather the suggestions being made will achive what I consider acceptable,rapid unconsiousness followed by death.

A gunshot wound or blunt force to the brain certainly qualify,aphixiation with felines,blunt force followed by chest compression for small k-9's,drowning for species associated with water.Work for me.

Lung shots for coyotes and skunks meet my criteria.As there are no governing regulations that I know of,I rely on my experiences and some thought as to what that lung shot actualy does to come to that conclusion.With a good lung shot the brain is going to be deprived of the blood it needs to function in a rapid manner resulting in what to me is a humane death.

The injection of various and sundry compounds,where I know nothing of what there affects are just leave me cold.There is no way I could justifly there use.There are injectable compounds designed to do what we want.Not all of us can obtain them,such is life.There are those among us that cannot legally use a pistol or revolver or other firearm because of circumstance or age.I wouldn't advocate the use of unacceptable methods to them because of that limitation either.

Every hunter in the woods aims for the heart and lungs. Thats standard and quick and human. Trappers go for the head shot to save the hide. Whats the difference?

What scares me is there are people out there that will put anything in a injector to try and see if it works.
One post I read, said something like, " I found this can of old stuff in the shed do you
think it will work" Now that's where I draw the line.....

There should be approved legalized chemicals only..
This is just my opinion, I may be wrong.....

I agree w/ predator145

I need to correct my previous post about the use of acetone. I used the wrong word . Testimonials is the word I should have used instead of information. I also have it from a experienced ADC guy that it works very well. If they don't squirt it must work good. That is the logic I am going with.
Dan

I will use blunt force trauma to the brain on smaller animals such as rats and mink(with the exception of possums where I will sometimes use dislocation of the neck/spinal column). Pretty much everything else is dispacthed with a .22 short to the brain.... Good job Hal for discussing this subject. I think it needs to be addressed. Espically for new trappers.

Good topic and yes controversial...my take...I believe that the VMA or AVA needs to further research our "dispatch" methods and consider the TRAPPERS situation. My guess is there are many methods that haven't been tested. I personally have never read a document from anyone or organization that detailed time of death using injected acetone as a killing agent on skunks...is there any research on this effective method?
Any method used to kill animals will be looked at scornfully by protectionist organizations. Trappers must use discretion in the field to avoid possible problems. As mentioned before the killing of the trapped animal is never enjoyable..just a necessity.

To be "humane", the actions to kill the animal (dispatch, euthanise or whatever) should be, as far as practicable, the most humane possible.

Now what that means is that it renders the animal unconscious as quickly as possible (preferably immediately) so that the animal feels no pain, and death should follow while the animal is unconscious.

The method used should also be repeatable i.e. it can be done over and over without fault.

The method should also be the least traumatic to others (eg bystanders). i.e. blowing a small animals brains all over the countryside with an elephant rifle is not acceptable, nor is running over it with the car etc, etc.

Getting back to the term "as far as practicable", what I see this doing is being adequately prepared, trained and equiped for the task. Not having the right equipment is not, in itself, a defense if it could have been forseen that the situation would present itself that, say for example, you caught something bigger in the trap (eg a coyote)that you needed to dispach and only had equipment to kill a rabbit.

Shooting in the chest is generally not as "humane" as a brain shot, so IMO it should be used only where a more humane method is not possible or practicable.

What is "humane" is often described in legislation. It is commonly defined as "causing unnecessary pain or suffering". This puts the onus on YOU to select the most appropriate method which complies with this definition. Recently here, someone shot their sick dog in the backyard with a crossbow and their "defense" was that they didnt have injectable drugs used by a vet to euthanise the dog. Is that "humane"?

The use of injectable chemicals has been raised with me before. IMO, if it is not tried and tested, legal, or conforms to industry "best practice", then it is hardly likely to be humane.

Like Hal, I will also play the devil's advocate and say here that if you cannot do it properly, are not equiped with the knowledge, skills, and equipment to euthanise an animal in the most humane way possible, then dont do it!
Mike

My opinion about shooting animals in places other than the brain: I feel a coyote (or smaller animal) shot through the heart/lung area with a .22LR or .22 Magnum at "close-range", could be compared to shooting a 125 pound deer with a .243 at 200 yards. Assuming the heart/lungs are "damaged" equally, rapid blood loss should cause their brains to stop functioning, I feel that's acceptable. As a rule I dispatch my trapped land-animals with a .22 shot to the brain.

I have "needled" several skunks. I used a type of acetone/paint-thinner, it worked good. Is it more or less "humane" than the stuff vets us to put dogs and cats "to sleep"? One thing we need to look at as trappers, the DMV has his hands on the animal, and can feel it's heart-beat, breaths, and can part the hair to make a precise injection. Where I'm using a syringe on a 4 foot long pole, on a "wild" animal with 2 inches of fur. Big difference.

Dont have much to offer here on this subject, as I use different manners in different circumstances and Im not a fur trapper persay as most of you folk.

The acetone deal from another site was brought on from a arrest made of someone utilizing this method on skunks and got busted for it....that was the reasoning of not discussing it over there. I do not know this first hand but just the info from the sites owner.

I still use a overdose of ketamine to euthinize beaver in someones back yard in town cought in snares. Shooting is illegal and blunt force trauma is unethical in this scenario and caging a snared beaver is a pain the butt.

Foxes are done the old fashion way when I am fur trapping.......a wack on the bridge of the nose and then chest compressions.

Cats are always choked down.....

my question is who decides if its humane. If i use the vet bought stuff (which already discussed hard to get) and the skunk dies in 30 seconds and i use the unapproved acetone and it dies in 15 seconds, which do i use? We have to be realisic about what is available to us and then its up to us to be responsible enough to use what we feel is the most humane, but i'll tell you what, if someone showed me a legal substance that killed a skunk right as the needle touched him and that substance wasn't on the "approved humane list", if it kills the quickest, it IS the most humane for me and thats what i'll use.

Now on the subject of whether it should be talked openly about. I'll admit, there are things that do not need to be discussed in public and or a web site, but we do kill animals. I think instead of turning tail and running as to not offend mr. joe tree hugger, we have to defend our stance. dont be stupid about it, but defend it. as long as you are trapping animals, you are going to have to kill them. we can't make er sound any prettier. Please keep in mind i'm still talking about being smart. not the uneducated first year trapper telling stories in the coffee shop about how he kills his animals. If someone doesn't want to hear about killing animals, than any method we use described in great detail is going to offend them.

Tried and true, best practice, render the animal rapidly (instantly) unconscious, least offensive, legal; this seems like a good list to work from. "As far as practical" is one of those wiggle phrases to allow one to chose among several options that fit within the aforementioned list (said list is not necessarily complete). I suggest that any method for dispatching a critter should be considered in conjunction with the list before it is used. If you don't know what is happening / how it works you probably should find out before you use.

On another note, how many can accurately diagram the exact position of the heart / lungs of a animal from four different angles; for the sake of this discussion lets say to within the area of a needle point? (Don't forget these diagrams need be in three dimensions so you get the correct length needle.) And, when you miss the target organ, precisely where does the chemical go and what effect does it have on the neighboring tissue? How do you know this effect?

"when you miss the target organ.."

Tom, I believe I could closely parallel your argument analogizing the heart/lung shot with a bullet. (Which is exactly why I introduced it into the discussion. ) My question to you now is -- should injectors be more responsible for making the accurate determinations you have suggested than shooters? Or, do you think that shooting an animal through the heart/lungs is not a viable means of dispatch?

-- Hal

for larger animals a 22 short behind the ear alot less blood, for smaller animals like mink, muskrat a short blow behind the head, i don't like lung shots for larger amimals because of the large amounts of blood on the fur and the mess skinning one.

Now we are getting to the issues!

When I said that it is repeatable, that means without missing! Humane is doing it best every time. not some times!

"Humane" means "best method" (minimising pain or suffering). Not less blood, or a "bit quicker".
Mike

Sorry, "humane" does not mean "best method". Humane, in this context, means alleviation of suffering. I should remind everyone at this point that many people consider the act of trapping an animal an "inhumane" act, so obviously there is a lot of wiggle room in this definition.

Furthermore "best" implies a single ultimate method which results in the most "humane" dispatch. A very easy way to basically eliminate fur trapping would be to require that all animals captured in traps be euthanized in a carbon dioxide chamber -- should that be determined to be the "best" method.

And Mike said: "Not less blood, or a "bit quicker".

Frankly, I don't see how a quicker means of dispatch could be less humane, but maybe I'm not reading that right. However I can equate that to the CO2 chamber VS a bullet to the brain. It would not be as quick to take an animal out of the trap and euthanize it in CO2 chamber as it would be to shoot it. Frankly, I'm going to come down on the side of expediency, and shoot the critter.

Also, there are strong arguments for using methods that allow less fluids to escape from the animal's body. Take the skunk, which has become the bone of contention in this debate. Shooting a skunk in the brain will cause it to spray virtually every time. A skunk that has sprayed is terribly unpleasant to handle -- to the point that an argument could be made for simply disposing of the entire skunk. So, if we are concerned about utilizing the resource, and I think we should be, then the argument can be made that a viable means of dispatch is one that results in the skunk not spraying.

These issues surrounding dispatch are not cut and dried.

-- Hal

I could not agree more!

I dispatch with a lung / heart shot in certain occasions; so yes I believe heart lung shots are viable. I shoot 95% of the animals I dispatch and I'll be the first to admit that I dispatch few animals smaller than a bobcat or coyote; my target area is relatively large.

To answer the specific question on "injectors"; yes, they must be more precise than shooters...they are delivering a chemical into a specific cavity, while a shooter is passing a projectile through an area...three dimensional consideration as opposed to a two dimensional. Shooting (lung / heart) kills by massive and rapid hemorrhaging or destruction of the heart both of which result in loss of blood flow to the brain. The lungs / heart is “blood flow rich” and the “area” is relatively large albeit “hidden” more so than the ear. In addition shooters have options of bullet type etc that can maximize the tissue damage thereby facilitating bleed out. But I would not dwell on this issue and completely accept that users of either must be equally deliberate in their actions.

I’ll speculate a bit and suggest that acetone kills by asphyxiation when delivered into the lungs. This is probably very fast an effective. However there are two issues that I think should be considered: what are the effects of the chemical when it is not delivered into the lungs? Faster? Slower? Discomfort? Until someone can document these effects I contend that promotion of injection of solvents is flawed. Too many unknowns, too much room for error and one more “free shot” for those that would end trapping.

The second issue lies in the fact that federal law precludes acetone for this use; the use of all chemicals is governed by regulation established by the EPA. By promoting injection of acetone, regardless of if it works or not, is promoting the unauthorized use of the chemical. Is this in the best interest of trapping, trappers or the animals we trap?

"…use of all chemicals is governed by regulation established by the EPA."

Are you sure you want to go there? Is dipping traps an approved use for gasoline?

Now, I have a question that needs to be cleared up before I go any farther. Above "ketamine" has been described as a euthanizing agent. Is the placement of this chemical into the animals body less critical?

-- Hal

Ketamine is used intramuscular, I think thats the correct word but anyway, it means in the muscle....anwhere in the muscle of the animal.

So to answer your question Hal, it is NOT critical what part of the animal gets the shot.

***NOTE***

I almost didnt add the "ketamine" part as w/ JWR's drug, ketamine is a very regulated controlled substance, it does almost take a act of congress to obtain it even w/ a precription.

Its use is primarly done w/ dart guns in conjuntion w/ xylazine to tranq animals for relocation or to obtain data .
99.9999 percent of fur trappers have no need for it, sorry I mentioned it.

Keith: Please don't be sorry.

That is a helpful response. Now, here is the next question:

Is there any "approved" chemical/drug for euthanizing animals by lethal injection that would be easily and readily obtainable by the average trapper?

-- Hal

NO.........none

I feel what Hal says about should we be suggesting non-standard chemicals and others posting the use of controlled drugs is debate for ethics along with opinion.

I find it very concerning, especially for the youth that seek these types of web sites out for mentoring and education and the see that "you can just go to your vet and get some stuff that works great!" mentality. That is ethicly wrong on our parts as trappers for approaching a veterinarian for those drugs and the veterinarians part for allowing those drugs out of their hands.

If it read it right jwr has a wife that is a vet, that doesn't make anymore legal for him to have that drug than anyone else. Buzzard noting that he uses ketamine, a drug that is very troublesome with drug users and many veterinary hospitals are broke into to find it as a method of dispatching, very unsure how one would get such a controlled drug.

As for acetone or other products, would it be any better if someone manufactured a product that the public could buy over the counter for the purpose of dispatching animals?

I have worked in the veterinary medical field for 15 years and trapper for many of those. I am a supporter of the acetone injection and well placed shots. This is a debate that could go on and on.

Not sure where you read that at ?? You cant as I mentioned above.......I have a precription for it and I can only obtain it from one person, the person who wrote it.

As for my obtaining Ketamine , I am 100 percent legally alloud to have it in possesion and to use it.

I aquired it from a vet that is a veternarian consultant to many animal control offices across the lower 48 and also hold seminars for chemical imobilization across the same 48. I have taken his course and am certified to use all types of immobilization techniques.....hope that sheds a little light on where I get my drugs.

Also , for legal puposes as well as liability, I have on hand no more than 250 ml and they are locked in a steel box behind my seat at any time I am in the truck.

Also........I forgot.

I keep a log of every cc used , where , when and on what, the log must match whats left in the bottle.

When we talk about dispatching an animal I believe first and foremost in our minds and actions should be respect for that animal. I have a young son along with me on the trapline and the most important thing I want him to learn is respect for the animals that we trap whether it be a possum a raccoon or a coyote. When respect is shown, that animal will be killed in the best practical manner whether it be by a bullet to the brain or the lungs or by blunt force trauma to the brain, or by drowning, or by injection. If you know that you have shown respect than you know that you have done your job effectively and humanely.

Respect for critters that we trap doesn't begin and end with dispatching. Respect begins with equipment that is used to trap that animal and continues with proper set location. How the animal is handled once caught and after it is dispatched are very impressionable actions to a youngster. As a result I am very conscience (as I am sure 99.99% of the trappers out there are) of my actions while trapping. Respect for the animal continues with how we handle it when putting it up and how we handle and dispose of the carcass.

To me treating the critters with respect is key to trapping "humanely".........Ten Shot

Please, let us not lose focus here….

"This is a debate that could go on and on."

But it won't. I assure you that we will reach a resolution here.

KS: You say you are a supporter of acetone injection. Tell me how it works. Does it have to be injected directly into the lungs? What are your experiences with it?

On the "Skunk" thread, Downwind Ken says a vet recommended he use acetone. If that is true, then maybe this does have merit.

I would really like to hear more from people who have actually done this -- good or bad.

-- Hal

Im a bit confused here now w/ the comments made on acetone. Hal , please delete this iffin its too far off the focus of this thread.


AND


plus


The last quote was from my first post......as in the whole issue of acetone, is it legal ??

I find it odd that someone would get busted for it, if it was legal ?

Sorry Hal, I had been thinking about this all night and thought I'd share my thoughts with everyone.

I do know of a trapper in Northern Wis. that targets skunks. He live traps them and injects them with acetone in the lungs. I have never seen him inject so I guess this is second hand info.

I will jump on the wagon here also.......sorry

Joe Mott of NYS cage traps alot of skunks and uses acetone, he says it works perfect and quick.

10 cc's right into the lung cavity.

I would actually like to know more of the particulars of the person who got "arrested" for doing this. Frankly, I'm a little skeptical. Did this really happen?

-- Hal

Hal,

that is a good question......I will ask

I have injected many skunks with acetone as a method of dispatch. I have always used a 20cc syringe, 1 1/2in - 2in needle (18ga) and injected the acetone directly into the lungs It has always proven to be a fast/humane method of euthanizing skunks, they die with in 15-20 seconds. My experience with this method is only limited to skunks. I use other methods for different species, usually a .22 short in the ear.
There are a number of humane methods of dispatch, IMO. Like anything the individual is responsible for becoming practiced and proficient with such techniques.

Teal

As for my obtaining Ketamine , I am 100 percent legally alloud to have it in possesion and to use it.

I also have taken a coarse and I am 100% legal and also have to keep records, very accurate records.

I will be at a meeting Fri. night with about 40 local vets. I will pick the brains of handfull and see what they have to say about acetone.
Anyone ever looked at the lungs after injecting with acetone??

What happens if you "miss" the lungs?

-- Hal

Hal,

That is a very valid question and the truth is I don't know if I ever have missed the lungs. There have been times when I have felt the needle hitting a rib and had to pull it out and re-stick. But anytime I have completed the the injection the skunk has expired in an expedient manner. I have used this method over the years on 100+ skunks.

Upon reading my response I realize I didn't really answer the question. So to answer it: Hal, I do not know what would happen if one would miss the lungs.

Then, are you certain you are injecting this into the lungs proper, and not just into the chest cavity?

-- Hal

When I was first getting into doing adc here I needed a couple of syringes..I have a vet right down the road from me,so I went and bought a couple off him..While I was there we were talking about ADC work so I asked him if there was anything better to use than the acetone that I had been useing..He told me at that time that was probly the best "over the counter" thing to use..I have only used it on skunks..I use it the same way Teal Fyksen does..I always seem to end up with a faceing type situation, so normally I'm getting them in the chest area..Always try for a heart "shot",but doesn't seem to make much of a differance,same amount of time to expire..This is about the only way I know of that you can kill a skunk in an urban area without it spraying,and when I explane to people what I'm doing to keep the skunk from spraying,thay are all for it..
now for head shots..what about rabies?

I first read about dispacting skunks this way back in the late 80's..There used to be someone who sold "dispact kits" at that time also, but I haven't seen them being offered for a while.

”normally I'm getting them in the chest area..Always try for a heart "shot",but doesn't seem to make much of a differance,same amount of time to expire”

If I interpret this correctly, you are not making particular effort to put this in the lungs, since you said you often try for the heart. You simply go for the “chest area”. If this is a successful method, then it should be within the province of the average individual to accomplish.

Please, if anyone else uses this method I would really like to hear from you.

-- Hal

Hal, it may very well be better to get into the lungs but a lot of the times thay don't give you that option..When I first read about useing this,thay said "middle of the chest area" was best spot to try for..Story was ether in FFG or the TRAPPER in around 85-87?..

By chest area,I meen base of the neck on a skunk faceing you also..

Just to play devils advocate here - how "humane"
is it to use drowning sets to dispatch the animal for us?. Just because we get there & the animal is already expired, does that lead us to believe that the animal did not suffer as it was drowning?. Just a thought!!

Hal asked relative to approved use: “do you really want to go there?

Not particularly but others will. Also, thinning a tar like substance to coat metal may be viewed very differently than injections into living things.

Now I will interject this; personally I have no issues with acetone delivered to the lungs. I have no information that it causes any discomfort or is in any way inhumane. I have listened to many accountings of the speed of death; fifteen seconds seems on the slow side to what I have been told by others.

What instigated my original post was "nail polish remover". I think in this thread I read acetone / paint thinner (acetone thins some types of paint for sure, but how many would just grab paint thinner which is a VERY different mixture of compounds?)

I have no information on any prosecution for using acetone to kill animals. I would guess that some locals have "liberally” written anti cruelty laws that very likely could lead to such convictions. Without "approved use" or some other form of documentation I can envision convictions and pages of press releases.

A note in closing; I do believe that this type of thread serves trappers and trapping well. If we do not question ourselves I guarantee others will and while they are at it they will fix the problem permanently. Thanks Hal for your courage to delve where others won’t.

Very interesting thread.

To me putting an animal down humanely means having it die as quickly as possible without any or as minimal amount of suffering. Does this happen 100% of the time? No.

Each situation and critter dictates where the shot placement is, or drowning setup is used.

As to the use of acetone to inject animals. It isn't legal here.

If I remember correctly about the thread in question on using acetone and getting a fine. I think it was that the person didn't get fined because they used acetone (would've got fined for using any drug) but rather that it wasn't defined as a legal dispatch method in their area.

I've been trained and certified (as a bird bander) in the method of cervical dislocation. I think I've could count on one hand the number of times I've used this method. Only because the situation and animal dictated that it be used.

A point to add to the complexity of this thread......regulated and controlled euthinizing drugs and drugs used for anesthisia take longer than the the commented 15 secounds of a chest cavity acetone shot skunk.

Sodium phenobarbitate (sp) which is the euthinizing drug of most if not all veternarian clinics as well as the drug used for "human" death sentences takes much longer than 15 secounds ........so someone explain to me why 15 seconds is slow in the field and not in the clinic ?

Could we be confusing unconsciousness and death?

Tom,

dont they both come hand in hand wherever chemicals are used ?

I suppose they are hand in hand, but I think they could go through the door single file ...consciousness leading the way.

Which brings me back to my previous post.

Humane means, safe, quick, with the minimum of suffering, and is LEGAL. This is regardless of whether it is shooting, drugs (I also use these on animals) or anything else.

It wouldnt surprise me if someone was busted for using a substance which was not legal on animals. In most jurisdictions, the use of anything on animals must be registered and approved by the relevant authorities.

So the issue of using acetone on skunks and its humaneness may well be irrelevant if it is not legal.

I suggest you check with you local authorities (game departments and animal welfare regulators) before using any method to dispach animals outside the "norm".
(and Hal, what I meant by "humane means 'best method'" is that "best" is the method used which conforms to the definition of humane ie it is the most appropriate. Chech your animal welfare legislation and it may well define humane and cruely)
Mike

"If I remember correctly about the thread in question on using acetone and getting a fine. I think it was that the person didn't get fined because they used acetone.."

Well now gol-darn -- which is it? Arrested for using acetone or not? It's beginning to appear that this actually did not happen. I have asked Mr. French, who introduced this notion, to clarify it -- if he can. However, that does not preclude us from addressing that issue.

I am cautious about "legally" sanctioned dispatch methods, and to whom these "legal sanctions" apply. For example, I will assume that slaughter houses have legal guidelines to go by. I also make that assumption for veterinary clinics. This may also spill over into the realm of licensed ADC trappers. Their license may require them to use certain dispatch methods.

Now let's move on down to run-of-the-mill hunters and trappers. I said in a previous post that I would be very, very careful in mandating methods of dispatch for these user groups. When viewed beside the vets, slaughter houses, or ADC trappers, how many of you think an arrow is going to pass as a standard of dispatch? Standards of dispatch could bring an end to bow hunting quicker than anything else.

Our Australian friend, Mike, offered this: "Chech your animal welfare legislation and it may well define humane and cruely"

So far, in this country, we have been able to divorce "animal welfare" regulations, from the harvest of wild animals. Here, animal welfare regulations apply largely to domestic animals. I for one will strive to see that it remains that way. Or, as noted above, there will quickly be no more bow hunting.

Truth is there is no standard of dispatch for hunters and trappers. (I may not be 100% correct here. It sticks in my mind that one state may require trappers to shoot an animal or release it alive.) Be that as it may, for the most part it is at the discretion of the hunter or trapper to dispatch the animal by whatever means they find necessary or acceptable. In other words, I do not believe a fur trapper could be fined for killing an animal by lethal injection, no matter what chemical he uses.

That being said, we have always advocated quick and "humane" methods of dispatch for trapped animals. (Here's a little bit of irony, but I don't think any of use would recommend shooting a trapped animal with a broadhead as a method of dispatch.) If injecting an animal in the chest cavity with acetone results in death in under a minute, then that is a quick and humane method in my estimation.

But… we also need to keep in mind that acetone is much more than common "paint thinner" (mineral spirits). Acetone is a very volatile chemical. Paint thinner is much more closely related to kerosene, and the first person on this site to recommend injecting an animal with kerosene, will be the last person to do so. So those of you who are lumping acetone in with paint thinner and fingernail polish remover, need to educate yourselves to the difference.

We solicit further input.

-- Hal

Ok, sorry to take so long to get back.

I asked my source specifically about the acetone bust thru a pm . His reply was that no specifics were ever available , in this light I would assume the bust was either a hoax or a rumour.

My apologies for giving misinformation, I was wrong to imply the legalites of acetone thru hearsay.

Thank you, sir.

-- Hal

I'm pretty sure that the owner of this site is well versed on the politics of trapping (anti-trapping type legislation or those types of laws that could be spilled over to trapping). I make this post to remind and inform those less experienced to be on the look out for, shall I call them, "cruelty" bills. This is a new or newly energized tactic of the anti organizations that will or could impact on a wide variety of animal use issues. Many of these bills are carefully worded in such a way that, if passed, could easily lead to imposition of "standards” on the taking of wide life. Albuquerque just passed a 65 page animal cruelty ordinance that was taken right out of the PETA and HSUS play book. This will make it much easier to spread these types of bills to other locals and ultimately the entire state. Likewise Kansas had a state wide cruelty bill this year. It is imperative that each of you keep your senses about you relative to legislation, whether it is a state or local bill / ban. It is many times easier to block a bill than repeal one.

Thank you, Tom. I didn't mean to be nebulous.

-- Hal

Skunks get the injection. Fox get the trowel. Coyotes get a .22 to the lungs (sometimes head though). Coon .22 to the head. Everything else gets snapped with a coni or drowning set.

In my honest opinion Ide ask ones self, "if you knew you was about to be put to death, How would Yourself want it?" In all fairness and thoughts on this topic, Ide take the bullet to the head versus all other choices given. Second would be bullet in lungs third drowning, last would be needle. Some may ask why on the last one, reason is you would feel the anitial poke of needle then the stuff working on you. Thats just my opinion. With a bullet to the head u dont feel nothing. And death is due as soon as firing pin has hit its mark.

Something was said about whether or not injection is legal. I asked a local game and fish officer this morning and he didn't have the answer. So, he called his superior and the superior looked it up and in Arkansas he said animals could not be injected period. Is there any Arkansas trappers that can dispute this or is he correct? While on the topic: if injection isn't legal what's the next best method for dispatching without them spraying? Assuming they are caught in a foothold and not a live trap.
Mark

I've been following this thread since the beginning and there has been a lot of thought put into the responses. It appears to me, the expeditious manner in which death occurs is the most applicable "humane" issue... the quicker death occurs, the less pain, suffering, etc occur.

That beng said, a well-placed bullet in the brain would overwhemlmingly be the choice method. Once you destroy the hindbrain, specifically the medulla (controls heart-rate, breathing, etc), which all animals considered here have, located essentially at the base of the skull, bodily functions cease, period. There may be some residual nerve firing, and some speculation has been made of momentary consciousness, but, for all intensive purposes, death has occured. Couple that with a supersonic bullet and that's about as instantaneous as you can get. I realize that's all in a "perfect world," and there are going to be some "not-so-well" placed shots, however, if it was me, and that's a good way of looking at it, that'd be the method I would choose.

The next time you talk to him please have him make the same call again and get the regulation #. I have read it ( the complete reg book) twice and have not found anything about dispatch methods anywhere in it.
I know I am legal and will not have a problem but would still like to see it.

Folks, please stay on topic. This is not a "what method do you use" thread. It is about non-standard methods, and primarily lethal injection, and more to the point, acetone as a chemical for lethal injection. (I will edit the title to reflect this.)

The question of legality is certainly valid. I really would like to know if there are states that prohibit trappers from using lethal injection as a method of dispatch.

And, I really would like to continue here. I have been waiting to hear the "horror" stories of botched injections, or bad experiences using acetone as the chemical agent. So far, none have materialized.

I am still slightly unclear as to the target area for the injection. Is does appear, however, that injecting directly into the lungs is unnecessary as long as the chest cavity is breached. This is important as we are concerned with inexperienced people being able to accomplish this task.

I really hope we can get a little more input from people who have experience in injecting acetone. Also if there are those who continue to harbor objections to this, now is the time to speak up.

-- Hal

I'll jump in briefly, T-61 is a non controlled euthanizing agent, that given the right dose will dispatch humanely. In Canada we are controlled by the "act of administering" a pharmaceutical for euthanizing or tranquillizing purposes. So you must be certified to administer, even if the drug is not controlled. That may not be the case in many states.

what is T-61

What I found..........

Vet specialties

Target Species: Cats and Dogs.

Active ingredients: embutramide

Description: T 61 is indicated for euthanasia of animals.

Composition
Solution contains per ml:
0.2 g embutramine
0.05 g mebezonium iodide
0.005 g tetracaine hydochloride

Formulation: Aqueous solution for injection.

Indications: Euthanasia.

Dosage:
Dogs, intravenous injection:
0.3 ml/kg by slow intravenous injection.
Dogs, intrapulmonary/intracardial injection:
Dogs up to 10 kg: 7-10 ml, dogs above 10 kg: 10 ml, followed by a second dose of 3-10 ml after the animal has become unconscious. The best place for the injection is the dorsal third of the chest wall, directly behind the scapula.

Cats, intrapulmonary/intracardial injection:
Kittens up to a few days old: 1 ml, kittens up to 6 months: 3 ml, cats above 6 months: 5 ml, ctas above 5 kg: 10 ml. The best place for the injection is the dorsal third of the chest wall, directly behind the scapula.

Presentation: Cartons with a vial containing 50 ml.

Storage: At room temperature.

Further information:
In case of accidental penetration of the operater’s skin through an existing wound or inadvertent puncture with the needle, the wound should be thoroughly washed out, and analeptic drug treatment should be considered.

(Edit: Non-substantive. -- Hal)

Here in Ohio, we are alowed to use acetone to euthanasia furbearers(skunks)..I have never heard of anyone useing this method on anything but skunks though..
I called the ODNR dist 4 office and talked to the law enforcement superviser about this and a couple of other issues from here..There were a couple of things that I and a whole lot of others always thought were legal that arn't!..For Ohio's laws, you can go to..anderson.com..look under ohio admin code..trapping is under sec. 1501:31-15-09..

(A search under "anderson.com" yields no results. -- Hal)

Sorry Hal,I put that on here before I had tried to look it up..I was able to find the site under a general search of "Ohio Administrative Code"..I was abile to find it there..1501:31 is the division of wildlife part of it..rest is under that 15-09 part..sorry for the confusion..

Working with acetone on regular basis id bet if you didn't hit the lungs or heart it still would dissolve the lungs. I would like to test this on a squirrel the next time I kill one and see if my theory is right...
As some else has asked, has anyone opened up the cavity to see what it does?

Hal has asked if there are any objections to speak up now.

In a previous post, I said to check to make sure it is legal. Perhaps what I should have said was make sure it is isnt illegal. And that applies to all the statutes, including game, animal welfare, and registration of products for use on animals when using injectable chemicals.

I am of the firm view that whatever the method of dispach of the animal, the first thought is the humaneness of the method. A secondary consideration should be whether the skunk sprays, or whatever your other issues are with your trap. If we dont put animal welfare first and foremost, then we will (rightly IMO) be a target ourselves (there is enough ojections from some quarters over trapping, dont add fuel to the fire).

My "objection" therefore is that trappers (or hunters) use the most humane method of dispach regardless of whether it is "standard" or not.

What may be considered "non-standard" means of dispach on the trapping line may well be "standard" (or at least routine) by others such as professionals. I inject animals under some circumstances where a bullet cannot be used, and after careful consideration of all the issues involved (availability of the product, animal welfare, safety, legal issues etc). I use general anaesthetics or "tranqilizers".

In relation to injection of acetone on skunks, the fact that skunks dont spray after injection into the lung cavity may indicate it is quick (and humane) or is there some other reason? Or is that secondary to spraying?
Mike

jwr, I called him and he gave me the regulation code # 18.07. Which reads: It shall be unlawful to take or attempt to take wildlife by the use of deadfalls, drugs, poisons, chemicals, or explosives. It doesn't specifically say dispacthing a trapped animal. (Arkansas)
Mark

The AGFC defines the word "take" as: to shoot, kill, injure, trap, net, snare, spear, catch, capture, or reduce to possession. So this would make it clearly illegel to use injection as a method of dispatching in Arkansas. Thanks Mike for the PM.
Mark
Mark

This came from the NYSDEC web site.........

It is illegal to take or hunt wildlife:

while in or on a motor vehicle (except by the holder of a Non Ambulatory Hunter Permit).
with the aid of a vehicle's lights.
on or from any public road.
with any firearm equipped with a silencer.
with any firearm which continues to fire as long as the trigger is held back (an automatic firearm).
with any semi-automatic firearm with a capacity to hold more than 6 rounds, except:
firearms using .22 or .17 caliber rimfire ammunition or,
firearms altered to reduce their capacity to no more than 6 shells at one time in the magazine and chamber combined, or
autoloading pistols with a barrel length of less than eight inches.
with a spear.
with a bow equipped with any mechanical device which is attached to the bow (other than the bowstring) for drawing, holding or releasing the bowstring except for a physically disabled person in possession of a Handicapped Archer Permit (compound bows are legal).
with a spear gun or crossbow except for a physically disabled person in possession of a Modified Crossbow Permit.
with an arrow with an explosive head or shaft.
with any device designed or intended to deliver drugs to an animal.

taken from the Michigan DNR website......


Use snares, traps, cages, nets, pitfalls, deadfalls, spears, drugs, poisons, chemicals, smoke, gas, explosives, ferrets, weasels or mechanical devices other than firearms, bows and arrows or slingshots to take wild birds or animals, except as provided by trapping rules or special permit.

I think I was the first person on this thread to mention the term "paint-thinner", sorry about that mess. Now I'll try to clear-up, my intentions. We have a large company here that builds kitchen/bath cabinets, second largest cabinet maker nationwide. I worked for them about 3 years. Last evening I asked one of their foremen "what's the difference between the aceton and thinner?", he said without reading the label on the bucket/barrel he couldn't be sure. He said they use acetone, and 2 other forms of acetone (what everyone on the floor calls "thinner"), keep in mind this is an industrial-quality product. Something specially formulated for one or 2 specific uses, and is not avialable at the local hardware store. He did also mention that the 3 componds are NOT stable if mixed, and the company was required to have seperate trash cans for used/dirty wipes, because of the chance of combustion. All 3 are highly-flammable, but basically they are all acetone, so that's what I used. "Thinner" is just a slang term used by the hourly folks, which I was at the time. Hopefully that helps to clear-up my earlier comment. The skunks I needled with the stuff, went-down in less than a minute. I did extract the musk, but never thought about doing an autopsy.

To be clear, acetone is a single 3 carbon molecule; C3H6O. It is the simplest form of a ketone possible. "Paint thinner" is naptha which is a distillation fraction of crude oil composed of multiple long chain hydrocarbons; it is a mixture of many molecules. The physical aspects of acetone are very very different than naptha.

I see no need for anyone apologizing for posts made on this thread...seems to me many have learned and have began to consider things in more depth...this is a good thing, a very good thing.

Thank you Tom. That is one of the perceptions that should be dispelled immediately. We are not talking about paint thinners. Paint thinners are various an sundry in nature, depending on what paint you wan to thin. If you want to thin latex paint -- water is the paint thinner you would use.

But what has become more curious is that the practice of lethal injection may indeed be illegal in some states. I'm always going to make allowances for specially trained/certified individuals to practice lethal injection on animals, so please do not drag that into the conversation. I'm talking about the average Joe who possesses nothing more than his fur harvesting license.

Folks have been quoting chapter and verse in some or these posts above here. While Ken has it on the authority of the Ohio Dist. 4 manager that this is legal in Ohio, I've made an attempt to look this up in the Ohio Code. The only thing I can find relevant to poisons is that they aren't allowed on arrows. It does define methods for "taking" "game" animals -- which does not include injection. However in Ohio, there is a distinction between "furbearers" and "game quadrupeds" (some like coon, fox, coyote maintain dual status). Only animals classed as furbearers may be taken with traps. And some furbearers (like beaver and otter) cannot be taken by any means other than trapping.

This is where things get very gray. The only legal means for "taking" furbearers is with approved "traps". So in a technical sense, if I have a beaver in a snare alive, it could be illegal for me to shoot it. However, the current interpretation is that once the trap has captured the animal, the act of "taking" has already occurred and the ultimate dispatch of the animal in the trap is at the discretion of the trapper.

I'll go out on a limb and say that is the way it is in most places. This is one reason I don't want to shy away from discussing methods of dispatch. If trappers are allowed to use their own discretion then they should be as well versed in these techniques as possible. I've never used lethal injection myself, but would like to become versed in this technique.

-- Hal

NEa thanks for clearing that up. I just didnt connect the dots.

I talked to several vet's. None had a exact answer, BUT all agreed acetone would work injected in the chest cavity. Some thought it would paralize the lungs while others thought it would destroy the lung tissue. None have ever actually studied the paticulars (sp) of acetone and euthansia.

Thank you for that input. That is helpful.

-- Hal

Hal -

I just sent you a PM with an attachment on this topic. Hope you received it.

Ten Shot

I spoke with a Conservation Officer for Nebraska Games and Parks this afternoon about the issue of lethal injection. I was told it would be considered an act of "cruelty," and falls under the law containing the following wording... cannot commit cruelty to a captured wild animal. The use of a .22 or a club do not constitute "cruelty," and were his suggested methods.

Ten Shot sent me the "2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia". I've archived it as a .pdf file, and you can link to it here:

2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia

It's an interesting read, and it does specifically list acetone as an objectionable euthanizing agent. However right below that, is says:

"Drowning is not a means of euthanasia and is inhumane."

It is clearly established than we already find our self at odds with the AVMA. So I'm not quite ready to reject acetone as a euthanizing agent, just on their say so. If I don't think the few minutes it takes to drown a critter is inhumane, then I'm not willing to concede that killing them in under minute with acetone is either.

Hal

In PA the only lawful way to dispatch a trapped animal is to shoot it. Although clubbing, cervical dislocating, and sufficating are common practice, they are by the letter of the law as illegal here as injecting. Just a FYI for all in PA.

jwr, your welcome. I hate that we can't use this in Arkansas. This was the means I was intending to use to dispatch skunks.
Mark

Perhaps my first post is still relevant to the conversation here regarding "humane" killing. That is, whatever method is used should be the most humane, it should be ethical, cause least suffering, be legal etc. I agree with Hal in that the jury is out at the moment on acetone and intentioanlly drowning trapped animals is not acceptable by most authorities when a suitable more-humane method is available.
Folks, you should always strive for the best means of killing animals, not the most convienient.
Mike

And for a second time in this discussion I'm going to take you to task on that.

There is a real danger in letting someone, or some entity, define the "best" of anything, as in the "most" humane. Even the AVMA document does not conclude that any particular method they suggest is the "most" humane. So how do you propose to define the level of humanity in trappers dispatch methods? If you are going to promote the use of the "most" humane method, can you provide us with a list of methods, rated by their level of humane value, from which we can choose?

Again, hunters and trappers fall outside the realm of professions and industries to whom standards are applied (thank goodness). Note that previously Wackyquacker warned to be alert for "animal cruelty" legislation which could include, or I should say preclude, acceptable or unacceptable methods of dispatch that would encompass hunters and trappers. Again, I'll use the analogy of bow hunting. Anybody really think an arrow is going to be an acceptable method of dispatch, except in your hunting guide?

A method of dispatch that renders an animal dead inside a few minutes, and there are several including drowning, is acceptable to me. It is also humane by my personal standards. So, why should a trapper not choose among the most convenient of these? Where is the logic in utilizing a less convenient method?

-- Hal

I believe my post, using the wording "lethal injection," was a bit mis-leading and I wanted to clear that up. The only issue I was referring to, in regards to "lethal injection," was the injection of acetone, or any other chemical, into a "captured wild animal."

I'd also like to respond a little to the most recent entry by Hal. I stood by my Dad two weeks ago while he put his lab/husky mix down... two injections, the first, a powerful anesthetic, the second, shutting down her vitals. In my opinion, that was "humane." It sure didn't seem like there was pain and/or suffering at that moment, just a peaceful exit. In my opinion, there is no comparison injecting acetone, or any other volatile chemical, into the chest cavity of an animal to a clinically controlled method, like the one I just explained. Therefore, I won't use that particular method.

At this point in time, the "most humane method" is SUBJECTIVE, and will be until such time as we have someone or something tell us A, B, & C, not D... and I agree with Hal, I would much rather, in fact, I hope to heck, it is left up to us, trappers or hunters alike.

I'll add a little to this discussion. I agree that the most convenient method should be used to dispatch an animal. With that I would also say the most comfortable method. And it all boils down to respecting the animals that we trap. If you are using a method that you are most comfortable with chances are the dispatch will be quick and "humane".

I agree with Wayne America in that humane is subjective. The AVMA report addresses the fact that trappers are (and I'm paraphrasing here)dispatching animals under a wide variety of conditions and that the individual should use the method that is appropriate for the situation.

Wayne said: "there is no comparison injecting acetone,"

Should we take this to mean that your experience in injecting acetone has been less than satisfactory? And are we to understand that your Dad is a vet or otherwise licensed to use these chemicals?

I really am soliciting opinions from folks who have had negative experiences using this method.

Hal

Euthanasia and killing wild animals or slaughter animals might best be viewed from different vantages. Euthanasia of family pets is a subject governed much more by anthropomorphisms than reality. Slaughter, is a step removed. Both however are in controlled situations and thereby allow / require more "apparent " compassion.

Killing wild animals takes place in the wild and in largely uncontrolled situations. This difference alone predicts very different levels of what is acceptable.

As an example of my thoughts, delivery of a 22 caliber slug to the brain is fast, final and without pain (as best as we can know). Why then don't veterinarians just shoot your dog for you? It is in poor taste, there are alternate and less "gruesome" options, safety; maybe it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the location of the vet's office. No, the main reason is that we view our pets as members of our families. We want for them what we would want for ourselves; anthropomorphic attitudes.

Society is largely removed from having to deal with the daily realities of life. As hunters, trappers, even fisherman, our perception of death and killing is different. Not evil or bad or of lower moral fiber, just different. The issue then is to help others understand with clarity what we "know". To some extent I think it foolish to attempt to reconcile euthanasia with humane dispatch of wildlife. However, when we begin to use syringes instead of guns, bows and stunning blows this distinction is more difficult to maintain.

Hal, no and no... I'll just listen!

What is the best method of dispach of an animal for me is not necessarily for you. The "best" method is the one most appropriate for you and your circumstances.
Having said that, it is apparent that there is some legislature and guidelines on this in most localities.

The use of non-standard methods of killing trapped animals should not be condoned just because they are "non-standard" per se.
But lets not lose sight of the realities of today where we should be encouraging best-practice among trappers and discouraging methods which could be considered not in the best interests of trapping.
It is interesting that with over 100 posts on this subject there are few that specifically say that the injection of acetone is the best method they have used.
Mike

Time to refocus.

First, we are not advocating this as a primary means of dispatch. In fact, this is very narrowly focused on skunks. I believe we can find a large body of knowledgeable opinion, that this method of poking an animal with a needle does not work reliably on animals other than skunks. The bottom line being skunks are very docile. So we are not advocating injection for animals like coons and coyotes.

And so far nobody has said they have a better method for skunks. I shoot skunks. But I'm not going to tell you that is better than injecting them, because I don't know. I've never tried it -- but I might.

Tell me why I shouldn't -- or why I should.

-- Hal

Hal: on 10-27, 10:25am, you reminded us that the topic was the use of the non-standard chemical acetone for use as lethal injection. With so many responses from trappers using this chemical, when should acetone lose the non-standard moniker? Frank.

While it is second hand, I do have some negative feedback on acetone.

A friend from Tn was called to the courthouse yesterday to deal w/ a skunk in the electric room of the building. The skunk was in a corner and a 12 cc shot was administered into the chest cavity........the skunk did not go down, a second 12 cc shot was given again w/ perfect placement and again the skunk did not go down.

The skunk acessed the room thru a long 4 inch culvert or pipe and quickly retreated to the pipe after the second shot. This man has done this many times and told me more than adequite time was had before the skunk left for parts unknown.

Second hand I know but this is the first I have heard of anything negative as well as the person in Tennessee.

The main drawback of useing a skunk stick is carrying the pole with you..I run most of my traps on foot so my stick usually stays in the truck until needed..Where I'm at now,we don't usually get into skunks very often so I'm only useing the stick while removeing a ADC catch..
I've tried all kinds of .22 shells(cb,shorts,short hp and up)and very rarelly was able to dispact one without spraying..Didn't seem to matter where thay were shot(head,chest,lungs,or back bone)thay almost always sprayed..While useing the dispach stick,thay very rarelly spray(maybe2-3 out of 100 or so?)..To me, that is the best reason to use this methed..Plus my loveing wife has already told me in great detail what she's going to do if I get her house smelling like a skunk!!..LOL..

Dated for search.