Vent: Humane Society made me sooooo mad!

[creekland]

WHen was horse slaughtering outlawed? Last I knew there were two slaughter houses in the US which took horses but their meat was shipped to other countries, I believe. I know that horse slaughter was still an option a year or two ago. Are you sure it's been outlawed?

 

never mind. I just googled online and saw that in 2006 it was outlawed in the US so horses are now sent to Mexico or Canada.

 

I'm so glad I saved my Shetland! I should have him until I'm 70, I hope!

 

 

I'm glad you have your Shetland too. And I'm happy for the 16 we have here at the moment. We have some buried on our property that served us well in their life and had a nice retirement afterward. However, for those who are not wanted - no one wants or is willing to take in - being slaughtered in the US was far nicer than a trip to MX with the methods they use there. Plus, then their lives had a purpose of some sort. Now, IF they get euthanized, they simply get buried (polluting the ground water in many cases) and have no real purpose. Meanwhile, other countries have taken up the slack and raise more to fulfill the dinner plates of those that want them.

 

My philosophy is let anyone save any that appeal to them, but then let the others have some purpose. It's far better than TWO animals having to die to fill one purpose.

[creekland]

So what? People with "animals are here for us to make a profit on, so we can treat them as cruelly as possible to wring every last dollar out of them that we can" beliefs have been into government regulation for a long time. The pendulum is swinging.

 

 

The difference is... no one on that side was making anyone open a puppy mill or even breed their critters. The pendulum swinging the way it is now IS encroaching on the rights of others merely due to how certain people feel about animals.

 

And again, this is not saying a private rescue or shelter can't put their own restrictions on. They have every right to. I solely object to legislation that tromps on the rights of others.

[BethInNH]

The biggest problem (IMO) is that a great many people do not take responsibility seriously.

 

Marriage, children, pets---anything. And our society makes this easier. If you want to party more and the dog needs too much from you (you can't stay out of town sponaniously) then just drop it off and forget about it (try not to think about the bad thing that might happen).

 

Lara

 

We live in a disposable society. If something's cramping your style- whether it's a husband (or wife), a pet, or a child- divorce him! Drop it off at the pound! Put them in daycare!

No one wants to live up to their responsibilities anymore. So sad.

As for me, if I love you- I love you for life- and I try to teach that to my kids. Doesn't matter how stinky (and I'm not telling who's who here lol):001_smile:, noisy, incontinent, or naughty you are- you're stuck with me for life! That applies to ALL my loved ones, the hubby, kids, birds, dog, and cats-

[creekland]

you know..... this upsets me. Everyone is entitled to their own passions. If they want to save a stray dog, let them. I'm sure there's MUCH more money spent on helping people than animals. Let each person put their money where they want.

 

You and I agree here. Anyone is free to use their money however they see fit in my opinion.

 

It's also why these threads are important so those of us who wouldn't spend our personal money in this fashion are more aware of what we are donating to when giving to a shelter and can check any specific one out carefully.

[Mama Geek]

The thing that gets me is a lot of these shelters get tax payer money through grants or other such things. If they were strictly private...make whatever rules you want.

 

I absolutely love dogs. My last one was a Siberian Husky (bought from a breeder) that made it 15 years. He was very hard headed, shed a lot, thought anything other than dogs and humans were food, and had a bad tendency to run for hours any time he escaped. We worked with the dog every day for 15 years. We never gave up on him even though at times it wasn't easy. My dh and I loved that dog like he was our kid. He travelled all over the country with us and lived in SC, TX, VA, and AK. We didn't understand the problems with the breed, but once we had him we weren't going to abandon him.

 

I am fairly sure we would be turned down at most shelters and possibly several breeders by the sounds of things on this post. The sad thing is we understand the time commitment needed to raise a dog and the responsibility that comes with it. I do hope in the coming weeks or months that we will find the right dog for us without having all the invasive rules that have been mentioned on this post. I will not sign most of the contracts mentioned on this post. I am not going to give some one control over a dog once I have purchased or adopted it.

[Imprimis]

Nope.

 

We all choose our causes. I could be out earning money & sending large chunks of it to feed starving children/fund homeless shelters/donate to women's rape relief etc etc etc. I don't. I choose to homeschool my kids because that's where I want to put my efforts now.

 

We all spend money (expensive curricula that sits on our shelves, for instance) & donate our time & efforts to various causes which speak to OUR hearts.

 

 

 

 

And you know what? I think it's an admirable cause. But, like ANY cause that we put our all into, I think we need to be reasonable enough to realize that not everyone will have the same idea about what makes a responsible, caring pet owner.

 

It is not all black and white. As has been mentioned throughout this thread, there are dogs and cats who live very happy, well-cared for lives even though it may not match YOUR ideal.

 

 

IMO, the problem arises when people become so radical about an issue (in this instance, pet ownership) that they can't even look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Imprimis

[Ginevra]

I don't understand wanting an outside dog, but I surely don't condemn anyone who does. Maybe getting more than one and making sure they are protected from the elements is the answer? IMHO. Please don't flame me.

 

No flaming here. Here's one place where I think the misconception lies. I would not be in favor of an outside dog if that mean tied up to the clothesline pole 24/7 whatever the weather with no interaction. I'm against that! I have a mostly outside dog. He comes into the garage at night, where he stays in a crate. He also comes in if it's very cold, deep snow, sweltering hot or storming. Every day, my husband brings the dog into his separate "Garage-Mahal," where he hangs out and works on his motorcycles. We often will then take a walk together out to the mailbox or the pond, sometimes with the kids, other times not, but always with the dog. What I'm saying is, having a dog that is mostly outside does not equal dog is left alone in the elements endlessly. That is the stereotype that shelters may have in their brain when they hear "outside dog". I've noticed that people who have lived on farms (like my dh) do not think of outside dogs this way. They are used to having dogs that work hard and are built to be outside. When I was growing up in suburbia, I thought all outside dogs were the horrid, forlorn, tied-to-a-tree things that you're probably thinking of. Hanging out with a farm guy changed my view. I also noticed that having animals that were kept outside by all normal people (horses, cows, pigs, chickens) did not equal lonely, abusive conditions. Their outdoor animals were as well-cared-for and loving as any animals I've known who are indoor.

 

I can hardly imagine an indoor dog at this point!

[katemary63]

Why? I don't see the connect...Some people may not be as passionate about children as they are about other animals...who's to say what they should do?

 

I am well aware that some people care more about animals then children. It was just a suggestion, worth a shot. She can do what she wants.

 

My suggestion isn't about wether people should give money to the cause of animals or children. Both are worthy causes. It's about spending $6000 on one stray dog. I, for one, would never give my money to an organization that was unable to draw the line between reasonable and obscenely excessive. At some point, grown ups need to be able to make difficult decisions that make sense and not just satisfy the placation of their emotions.

Edited August 17, 2010 by katemary63

[Murphy101]

I am well aware that some people care more about animals then children. It was just a suggestion, worth a shot. She can do what she wants.

 

My suggestion isn't about wether people should give money to the cause of animals or children. Both are worthy causes. It's about spending $6000 on one stray dog. I, for one, would never give my money to an organization that was unable to draw the line between reasonable and obscenely excessive. At some point, grown ups need to be able to make difficult decisions that that make sense and not just satisfy the pacation of their emotions.

 

:iagree:

 

I felt obscenely excessive to spend $350 on my younger cat and we will not do it again.

[ktgrok]

after reading this thread, and the strong opinions on either side...I feel sorry for people that think of it as "just" a dog. How sad. I'm not saying they are people. some dogs are better than some people....and of course my kid comes before my dog. but you know what...my dog comes before a strange man. its not black and white.

[BlsdMama]

They would be miserable outside all the time. Is your five acres fenced?

 

No offense to anyone but they'd also be miserable DEAD.

 

Seriously, we're talking about not enough homes for dogs so they're being put to sleep a.k.a. killed. Or, horribly, have to live out of doors.

 

Yes, dogs are pack animals. They're also NATURALLY outdoor animals. In the wild they'd live out of doors with a den and spend almost all of that time outside. Our culture has made them seem happier indoors but then cries woes that they shed, mark, scratch floors, have to be exercised, etc.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm a dog LOVER. We have one exceedingly well loved German Shepherd that we have spent thousands on. He was even driven cross country to be with us vs. flying. He's amazing. I've never, ever liked a dog so much as THIS dog. He is the perfect companion and we spend about eight hours a day outside with him. But, he is a dog. And I don't feel bad about him living out of doors. We chose our house, not based on our KIDS, but based on our dog and him being able to have a couple of fenced acres to play on.... Now, I'm not going to lie. He's outside because we rent and he'd kill their wood floors. I'd LOVE to have him in the house. I'd never worry about a stranger coming to my house ever, ever again. But, it isn't CRUEL to have him outside. It's cruel not to exercise an animal, not to train an animal, not to care for an animal, or give affection, or play with him. But it isn't cruel simply to have him live as nature intended. ;)

 

But then again, I'd say feeding commercial dogfood is inhumane because it isn't something they are naturally meant to consume. So... You'll have that I suppose. :glare:

 

(But c'mon, you knew they were NOT going to be happy about you having two un-fixed animals at your house.)

Edited August 16, 2010 by BlsdMama

[Denisemomof4]

after reading this thread, and the strong opinions on either side...I feel sorry for people that think of it as "just" a dog. How sad. I'm not saying they are people. some dogs are better than some people....and of course my kid comes before my dog. but you know what...my dog comes before a strange man. its not black and white.

 

those silly animals, who are JUST animals, save the lives of PEOPLE on a regular basis. And they don't show prejudice or judgment on WHO they save.

 

They also sacrifice their lives to save humans. On a regular basis.

 

I'm just sayin.....

:leaving:

[poodlemama]

Unfixed Cats: There are SOOOO many cats in this world! SOOOO many litters of unwanted kittens (we personally have fostered 4 litters so far this summer!) If you want the experience of kittens there are others ways to get it!

 

Outside Dogs: Dogs outside learn to have doggy hobbies, very few of which are generally appreciated by humans. An outside dog will be board, and find his own entertainment: barking, digging, chasing and killing farm animals (yours or possibly your neighbors). If you have a truly active farm and are outside 90% of the day then an outside dog will be a happy, happy, happy dog. If you are outside 60% of the time or less expect problems. Dogs are like kids, left to their own devises they come up with BAD ideas!

 

Lindsey

(former humane society dog trainer, former service dog trainer, obedience competitor and obedience instructor)

[Nakia]

Outside Dogs: Dogs outside learn to have doggy hobbies, very few of which are generally appreciated by humans. An outside dog will be board, and find his own entertainment: barking, digging, chasing and killing farm animals (yours or possibly your neighbors). If you have a truly active farm and are outside 90% of the day then an outside dog will be a happy, happy, happy dog. If you are outside 60% of the time or less expect problems. Dogs are like kids, left to their own devises they come up with BAD ideas!

 

 

 

Isn't that the truth?!?!? When we adopted our Border Collie mix a year ago, we were told he had a terrible chewing problem. He does, but only if he isn't getting enough attention. :D

[hornblower]

I think it's silly that people spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on: guns, purses, shoes, cars, scrapbooking, photography, restoring vintage cars, participating in glee clubs, & sports.

 

Off the top of my head, here's just a small sample of things I personally would not spend nearly as much on as some people I know.

 

Somehow I never heard Bob, Bill or Ted criticized for spending thousands restoring their 68 mustang. Or Janey "fundraising" (aka door to door begging) so her choir can go to some singing competition across the Atlantic. But if you spend money on an animal??? ooooooooh, you must be a weird animal activist!

 

Some people value the animals in their lives & will pay veterinary professionals the proper amount to provide health care. To others, they're disposable: this one is broken & it would cost $100 for medicine for it????? Fergit it. Kill it & I'll get another one for free from craigslist! Or try to adopt from a shelter & complain when I get turned down!

 

What a world.

[mommaduck]

I think that is the point the "other side" IS trying to make. That the HUMANE SOCIETY is the one that are treating them as disposable. Better off dead than happily running and playing with a family that actually wants the animal and wants to spend time with it.

[myfunnybunch]

The thing that gets me is a lot of these shelters get tax payer money through grants or other such things. If they were strictly private...make whatever rules you want.

 

Many local shelters get zero government funding and rely on donations, fundraising events, grants from private institutions, volunteers and adoption fees to make ends meet.

 

Part of the reason some shelters get taxpayer money through grants or local animal control departments has little to do with re-homing, and more to do with getting stray dogs off the street. And to prevent dogs with problem behaviors from being dumped in the middle of nowhere so that the people who live in what others consider the middle of nowhere constantly have to deal with stray dogs, even more than they already do anyway. Or it's used to capture, spay/neuter and get off the streets the bajillion stray cats we'd have wandering around if they weren't sheltered. Taxpayer $$ spent this way benefits all of us, even (or especially) those who don't like animals all that much.

 

Just because the organizations provide a beneficial service that's partly paid for with taxpayer dollars doesn't obligate them to follow a particular set of rules, and after reading this thread it's unlikely that we could come up with a government-imposed set of adoption standards for shelters receiving tax dollars that we could all agree upon anyway, right?

 

Cat

[Denisemomof4]

 

Somehow I never heard Bob, Bill or Ted criticized for spending thousands restoring their 68 mustang. Or Janey "fundraising" (aka door to door begging) so her choir can go to some singing competition across the Atlantic. But if you spend money on an animal??? ooooooooh, you must be a weird animal activist!

 

 

 

what happens when our car breaks down? We fix it. What happens when the roof leaks? We fix it. What happens when our animal gets sick? If we are responsible owners, we fix it. If we are not, we shouldn't own one. Seriously. Who is going to buy a car and then complain when it needs an oil change? Why is an animal any different? Honestly, a few hundred dollars should be expected once in awhile. If you're not willing to accept that, please don't own an animal.

[myfunnybunch]

Obviously there are jerky careless people, but they can't know that about a person after meeting them for five minutes.

 

Exactly. Which is why they can't just go by feel, or take it on a case-by-case basis, or if a person says they will take good care of an outside-only dog.

 

These are people who genuinely care for animals. To suggest that they're rather kill the animal than find it a home is a deep misunderstanding. The goal is to place the animal in a forever home with people who will not bring the dog back. That's why they rely on those questionnaires and the standards they've set to determine the likelihood of a person being a responsible pet owner. It means that some good people are winnowed out in the process, but it also reduces the percentage of animals coming back to the shelter.

 

Cat

[OHGrandma]

I think it's silly that people spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on: guns, purses, shoes, cars, scrapbooking, photography, restoring vintage cars, participating in glee clubs, & sports.

 

Off the top of my head, here's just a small sample of things I personally would not spend nearly as much on as some people I know.

 

Somehow I never heard Bob, Bill or Ted criticized for spending thousands restoring their 68 mustang. Or Janey "fundraising" (aka door to door begging) so her choir can go to some singing competition across the Atlantic. But if you spend money on an animal??? ooooooooh, you must be a weird animal activist!

 

Some people value the animals in their lives & will pay veterinary professionals the proper amount to provide health care. To others, they're disposable: this one is broken & it would cost $100 for medicine for it????? Fergit it. Kill it & I'll get another one for free from craigslist! Or try to adopt from a shelter & complain when I get turned down!

 

What a world.

 

Since you are very involved with animal rescue, maybe you could explain some of the decisions some of these shelters make?

I know some people will spend a lot more on maintaining a pet, and some will spend a lot less than we do. Personal decisions are just that, personal. But why will a shelter spend thousands on an animal that needs extensive surgery, or health care, or rehabilitation of some kind; but allow healthy animals to be put to sleep? Wouldn't it make sense to put down the sick animal and apply the thousands of dollars to saving 10 lives?

 

To the OP, watch Craigslist, we found a great Sheltie there and consider we saved him from being sent to a shelter.

 

Edited to add: To those who want an outdoor only dog, and think getting two dogs is the solution to filling the dogs need for a pack, I don't want to tell you how many dogs meet a miserable end because they start roaming as a pack. It takes a good bit of training to keep a dog home, without training that companion just becomes a traveling companion. We have a farm with little 'farmettes' of 5-10 acres sprinkled around us. Many of those landowners let their dogs 'run free', right into the hands of the dog catcher after they've run our livestock.

Edited August 17, 2010 by OHGrandma

[mommaduck]

Exactly. Which is why they can't just go by feel, or take it on a case-by-case basis, or if a person says they will take good care of an outside-only dog.

 

These are people who genuinely care for animals. To suggest that they're rather kill the animal than find it a home is a deep misunderstanding. The goal is to place the animal in a forever home with people who will not bring the dog back. That's why they rely on those questionnaires and the standards they've set to determine the likelihood of a person being a responsible pet owner. It means that some good people are winnowed out in the process, but it also reduces the percentage of animals coming back to the shelter.

 

Cat

No misunderstanding at all. The message is clear. The animal is better off dead, according to the Humane Society, than to be running happily and cared for by a family that wants it and wants to spend time with it...but that family is not good enough because they don't fit a list that has proven to be overboard and ridiculous.

[Mama Geek]

Many local shelters get zero government funding and rely on donations, fundraising events, grants from private institutions, volunteers and adoption fees to make ends meet.

 

Part of the reason some shelters get taxpayer money through grants or local animal control departments has little to do with re-homing, and more to do with getting stray dogs off the street. And to prevent dogs with problem behaviors from being dumped in the middle of nowhere so that the people who live in what others consider the middle of nowhere constantly have to deal with stray dogs, even more than they already do anyway. Or it's used to capture, spay/neuter and get off the streets the bajillion stray cats we'd have wandering around if they weren't sheltered. Taxpayer $$ spent this way benefits all of us, even (or especially) those who don't like animals all that much.

 

Just because the organizations provide a beneficial service that's partly paid for with taxpayer dollars doesn't obligate them to follow a particular set of rules, and after reading this thread it's unlikely that we could come up with a government-imposed set of adoption standards for shelters receiving tax dollars that we could all agree upon anyway, right?

 

Cat

 

Are you saying that the shelters that get government money won't spend an insane amount of money on 1 particular animal, maybe not $6000 as was being discussed, but I am sure they would pay a fortune to save a an animal just because.

[hornblower]

But why will a shelter spend thousands on an animal that needs extensive surgery, or health care, or rehabilitation of some kind; but allow healthy animals to be put to sleep? Wouldn't it make sense to put down the sick animal and apply the thousands of dollars to saving 10 lives?

.

 

I don't know of any shelters that would do that.

 

I volunteer for several rescues - non-profit registered charities.

 

The rescue that Bear is with does not euthenise for space. We have a network of foster homes & pets stay there until they find their forever homes. Palliative fosters stay in their loving foster homes until their quality of life suffers too much & they're helped compassionately to pass.

 

Most of the large municipal shelters in my area are NO KILL. They do not euthenize for space.

 

Anyone interested in the plight of homeless animals & the changes in sheltering should read Nathan Winograd's Redemption:

 

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/

 

& check out No Kill Advocacy.

 

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/

 

I fervently want there to be no animals killed in shelters except those that are a clear danger to others or in such medical distress that no relief can be given to them & their quality of life is minimal.

 

We CAN make that happen. One dog & cat at a time.

[WishboneDawn]

I think that is the point the "other side" IS trying to make. That the HUMANE SOCIETY is the one that are treating them as disposable. Better off dead than happily running and playing with a family that actually wants the animal and wants to spend time with it.

 

And the implication of this position seems to be that the Humane society has some way of knowing for sure which are the good families.

 

They don't. There's no crystal ball. And worse, they probably deal with animals all the time that have been removed from or dumped by "good" or well-meaning families.

 

Sure, the OP may have been completely sincere in her intent to, for example, keep and fix the kittens but how many times have the HS people heard that and had people who didn't follow through on their good intention or never had any intention of following through on that? It's not personal. It's an organization trying to ensure the best life possible for the animals in their care.

 

Sometimes that may mean an animal dies but I suppose if you're the HS worker that's preferable to passing the animal into a life of possible misery.

 

The HS has some requirements. If a person can't or won't meet them it shouldn't be a surprise or taken personally if they are refused.

[OHGrandma]

Thanks hornblower. I've seen local stories where thousands of dollars are spent on a few animals that have been neglected or abused, while down at the local pound they're euthanizing dogs & cats for lack of homes. I guess it's the poor neglected or abused animal that tugs on peoples heartstrings and wallet.

[WishboneDawn]

There couldn't have possibly been anything I put on the questionnaire that was a problem. I honestly think the woman working that day was just being jerky. She wanted me to bring in my entire family (which just was not possible) to just look at the cats.

 

I went to a satellite of the shelter (on the same day). I filled out the same questionnaire. I put down the same answers. I walked out with a cat in an hour. Nobody there told me I had to bring in my entire family.

 

I appreciate their caution and concern and care, but come on. Maybe I just had a bad experience with one person. I don't know.

 

I don't think I'd view that as "jerky". I'd see that as a shelter that has requirements you didn't or couldn't meet. No biggie, no need to get angry, move on to another one with different requirements.

[myfunnybunch]

Are you saying that the shelters that get government money won't spend an insane amount of money on 1 particular animal, maybe not $6000 as was being discussed, but I am sure they would pay a fortune to save a an animal just because.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. I did not address how shelters spend the money at all.

 

I addressed the comment relating receipt of taxpayer dollars to adoption rules. Animal shelters provide a public service that benefits all of us. Just because they get taxpayer dollars doesn't mean that they should not get to set their own standards for who does or doesn't get to adopt. That's all.

 

Cat

[rafiki]

.

[Rivka]

We live in a disposable society. If something's cramping your style- whether it's a husband (or wife), a pet, or a child- divorce him! Drop it off at the pound! Put them in daycare!

No one wants to live up to their responsibilities anymore. So sad.

As for me, if I love you- I love you for life- and I try to teach that to my kids. Doesn't matter how stinky (and I'm not telling who's who here lol):001_smile:, noisy, incontinent, or naughty you are- you're stuck with me for life! That applies to ALL my loved ones, the hubby, kids, birds, dog, and cats-

 

Did you just seriously equate using daycare with thinking a child is "disposable" and not loving them? Seriously? Using daycare so you can earn a living and support your family is like abandoning your dog at the pound?

 

That's one of the most offensive things I've ever seen anyone post. You are badly in need of a sense of perspective.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Did you just seriously equate using daycare with thinking a child is "disposable" and not loving them? Seriously? Using daycare so you can earn a living and support your family is like abandoning your dog at the pound?

 

That's one of the most offensive things I've ever seen anyone post. You are badly in need of a sense of perspective.

 

:iagree:And yet, if that same parent didn't put their child in daycare and stayed home with said chidl, but used welfare she would be seen as a freeloader ''welfare queen''. There is no way to win. :glare:

[poodlemama]

Many local shelters get zero government funding and rely on donations, fundraising events, grants from private institutions, volunteers and adoption fees to make ends meet.

 

Part of the reason some shelters get taxpayer money through grants or local animal control departments has little to do with re-homing, and more to do with getting stray dogs off the street. And to prevent dogs with problem behaviors from being dumped in the middle of nowhere so that the people who live in what others consider the middle of nowhere constantly have to deal with stray dogs, even more than they already do anyway. Or it's used to capture, spay/neuter and get off the streets the bajillion stray cats we'd have wandering around if they weren't sheltered. Taxpayer $$ spent this way benefits all of us, even (or especially) those who don't like animals all that much.

 

 

 

Cat

:iagree:

 

Both of the shelters I've worked for had gov. money because they did contract work as animal control, the money was specifically and exclusively for that purpose.

 

Lindsey

[KidsHappen]

Nope.

 

We all choose our causes. I could be out earning money & sending large chunks of it to feed starving children/fund homeless shelters/donate to women's rape relief etc etc etc. I don't. I choose to homeschool my kids because that's where I want to put my efforts now.

 

:iagree: We simply aren't all passionate about the same things. That doesn't mean that those things are important to us just that we feel are efforts are better expended elsewhere. We all have our own interests, causes, ideas and beliefs that are important to us and that is as it should be. Could you imagine if everyone in the world only cared about the same one thing? Well sure that one thing might be taken care of and no longer be a problem but everything else would be a mess. There are plenty of issues to go around and I for one am thankful that there are different people dealing with all these different issues because I for one sometimes have more than one problem in a lifetime.

 

So if I want to know more about green living and organic farming, I ask Colleen. If I want to know about naturopathic living, I ask Peela. If I want to know about pet care, I ask Hornblower. If I want to most recent research on psychotropic meds I ask Asta. If I want to know about bi-polar I just talk to myself (at least that's why I tell myself I do that:tongue_smilie:) In I just want a good dose of plain ole common sense delived with a smile, I ask Rosie and if I just want to know how to ruffle someone's feathers, I ask Remudamom. ;) That is the wonderful thing about this board, the diversity of interests, passions and knowledge.

[Danestress]

She enjoyed her walks, but she wanted to be in whatever room my sister and BIL were in. They had a fenced in back yard, but she wouldn't stay outside for ten minutes without them. Sweet sweet dog.

[Haiku]

The thing that gets me is a lot of these shelters get tax payer money through grants or other such things. If they were strictly private...make whatever rules you want.

 

But if they take taxpayer money, anyone who wants an animal for any purpose or in any situation should be able to get one?

 

Tara

[Haiku]

At some point, grown ups need to be able to make difficult decisions that make sense and not just satisfy the placation of their emotions.

 

But yet people advocate spending unreasonable, obscene amounts for healthcare for people to prolong their lives by a few weeks or months, and somehow that's ok ... because they are people, and we have an emotional attachment to them.

 

Tara

[mommaduck]

The HS has some requirements.

SOME requirements, fine. Practically wanting you to dig up your grandmother for a DNA sample is not.

[weaver_67579]

I've never heard of labs & retreivers being lap dogs. They weigh 80 pounds. I thought labs were bred to be hunters? Water dogs? Duck hunting?

 

does not preclude them from also being good house pets. Until recently I had 3 German Shorthaired Pointers (and a Dalmatian) in the house(I lost 1 at Christmas, the Dalmatian at Easter and one 2 weeks ago to old age related health issues at ages 14, 15 and 16) . They were very well obedience trained and perfect housemates. One Shorthair loved field work. She also loved being a couch potato and licking the baby. I know people with Field Champions in hunting that also are family pets as well as herding trial champions (as well as actual working on the farm dogs), competition obedience, agility and tracking dogs that are indoor family companions. It is a myth that dogs have to be or prefer to be outdoors if they are "working" dogs. My only remaining old Shorthair is a wonderful house pet that is sleeping on his dog bed by my desk right now. All of my dogs would have loved to sit on my lap-if I would have let them.

 

Besides, many breeds of dog were originally bred to do things that the vast majority no longer do. Not many field working American Cocker Spaniels are around these days. When was the last time most people saw a German Shepherd Dog herd sheep? Most people haven't seen a Wirehaired Fox Terrier having to go on a fox hunt lately either. A lot of people have them as purely pets and they do just fine. I would also guess the vast majority of Labrador and Golden Retrievers never hunt a duck. Most of them that I know that do hunt-also are indoor family pets.

[Lolly]

you know..... this upsets me. Everyone is entitled to their own passions. If they want to save a stray dog, let them. I'm sure there's MUCH more money spent on helping people than animals. Let each person put their money where they want.

 

This just struck me. Nobody should look down on people who put money into animals. They have no idea, or right, to judge what else they put their money to. I would love to donate more to animal welfare. So what? That's my choice. But I've also traveled around the world and paid 24k for a child, and I've helped numerous people and children IRL and through organizations. But even if I didn't, I still have the right to donate my money where I desire and it's nobody's business to have an opinion on that. Thank God there are people out there who actually care enough to help an ailing animal because in my experience there simply aren't enough people to do this. I

 

I really get tired of people judging others, and I get tired of people thinking their way is the right way or the only way. Thank God we are all different.

 

If someone wanted to spend their own $6000 on their pet's medical bills, I'd have no problem with it. But for an organization to spend that kind of donated or tax money on one animal...Note to self, do not donate any more money to animal rescues.

 

But yet people advocate spending unreasonable, obscene amounts for healthcare for people to prolong their lives by a few weeks or months, and somehow that's ok ... because they are people, and we have an emotional attachment to them.

 

Tara

 

And, some grown up people DO have a problem with spending outrageous sums of money on healthcare for people. Yep. They sure do. It is a much harder call to make, but it is one that is made with regularity on daily basis.

[Haiku]

And, some grown up people DO have a problem with spending outrageous sums of money on healthcare for people. Yep. They sure do. It is a much harder call to make, but it is one that is made with regularity on daily basis.

 

And people scream about that, too. ****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't.

 

Tara

[Denisemomof4]

If someone wanted to spend their own $6000 on their pet's medical bills, I'd have no problem with it. But for an organization to spend that kind of donated or tax money on one animal...Note to self, do not donate any more money to animal rescues.

 

 

 

 

 

are there really shelters that run on tax money alone? I think most of the money comes from donations, and I would gladly donate to Hornblower's rescues if I didn't have my own to support single handedly.

 

I wonder what portion of a rescue runs on taxpayer money.

:bigear:

[jazzyfizzle]

I think it's silly that people spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on: guns, purses, shoes, cars, scrapbooking, photography, restoring vintage cars, participating in glee clubs, & sports.

Somehow I never heard Bob, Bill or Ted criticized for spending thousands restoring their 68 mustang.

 

 

 

 

Hornblower, what gives with the vintage Mustang hate?? :D:D:lol: Now purses, I get. :DJK. (Dog obsessed me- surrounded by a whole family of ancient Mustang guys here.)

:tongue_smilie:

 

 

So this thread is still going. Has the OP been back?

 

I think the whole problem is trying to regulate responsibility.

 

It can't be done.

 

This is a huge Catch-22 and a scary downward spiral for animal owners.

 

The irresponsible idiots that treat animals badly, do not take care of them, hurt them, dump them, ect. ect. ect. cause problems for the animals and for the rest of society to deal with.

 

This cause has the effect of government or organizations to try to regulate this type of responsibility/behavior. Unfortunately, mostly what it accomplishes is to restrict the responsible folks. It is not the intended result, but sadly pretty much the real result. It has really none of the desired effect on the idiot.

 

I think many of the rescue stipulations are ridiculous. But once again, they are trying to regulate these issues in some fashion, having to previously deal with idiots.

There is little way of knowing just which family will be responsible- whether that dog is mostly outside (and for the record, I do think a dog can be very happy outside- under a certain set of circumstances and I do think society has let dogs get cushy. Oh, and Border Collies definitey need to be with their people sometimes :D), or a pampered baby doll by the fire. So they attempt to deal with this by the stipulations.

[Brilliant]

But yet people advocate spending unreasonable, obscene amounts for healthcare for people to prolong their lives by a few weeks or months, and somehow that's ok ... because they are people, and we have an emotional attachment to them.

 

Tara

 

I don't agree that end-of-life healthcare dollars are always wisely spent, so your point is valid.

 

But the reason I value people is not because of my "emotional attachment", but because they are PEOPLE and I believe they have an inherently greater value than, say, dogs.

 

After seeing the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina, I told my husband that I wouldn't have left our dog behind (you might recall that some of the evacuation buses wouldn't allow pets). Because my emotional attachment to my dog is so strong, I'd have done almost anything to make sure he was rescued along with my family. But in an emergency situation if I had a choice between hanging on to my precious pup, or grabbing hold of a complete stranger - no emotional attachment - I'd choose the random stranger over the dog in a heartbeat, because I believe human life is more important than a dog's life.

[BethInNH]

Did you just seriously equate using daycare with thinking a child is "disposable" and not loving them? Seriously? Using daycare so you can earn a living and support your family is like abandoning your dog at the pound?

 

That's one of the most offensive things I've ever seen anyone post. You are badly in need of a sense of perspective.

 

Just to clarify- I was not refering to folks who need to use daycare in order to work to support their families. I was referring to those (and I know quite a few of them) who put their kids in daycare or extremely early preschool programs, in order to give the mom time to herself everyday to do what she wishes. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone by my comment.

[Carrie12345]

Besides, many breeds of dog were originally bred to do things that the vast majority no longer do. Not many field working American Cocker Spaniels are around these days. When was the last time most people saw a German Shepherd Dog herd sheep? Most people haven't seen a Wirehaired Fox Terrier having to go on a fox hunt lately either. A lot of people have them as purely pets and they do just fine. I would also guess the vast majority of Labrador and Golden Retrievers never hunt a duck. Most of them that I know that do hunt-also are indoor family pets.

 

My GSD-mixes and my in-laws' GSD purebreds herd children. I guess I'll keep breeding myself so the dogs can have that experience. ;):lol:

[katemary63]

But in an emergency situation if I had a choice between hanging on to my precious pup, or grabbing hold of a complete stranger - no emotional attachment - I'd choose the random stranger over the dog in a heartbeat, because I believe human life is more important than a dog's life.

 

Thank you and God Bless you.

[Denisemomof4]

Thank you and God Bless you.

 

I don't understand this comment. Do you actually think a dog lover would spare a human life to save a dog?:001_huh: Have you EVER met someone who would do this? EVER? Or is this just an assumption of yours? I honestly don't get it.

[Haiku]

they are PEOPLE and I believe they have an inherently greater value than, say, dogs.

 

 

I don't see it as a competition or conflict between human and non-human. All life is valuable, and I am called on to help all beings and alleviate whatever suffering I see to the best of my ability.

 

Tara

[weaver_67579]

My GSD-mixes and my in-laws' GSD purebreds herd children. I guess I'll keep breeding myself so the dogs can have that experience. ;):lol:

 

they often still have herding instinct-but no sheep. I guess kids will work.

[mommaduck]

I don't understand this comment. Do you actually think a dog lover would spare a human life to save a dog?:001_huh: Have you EVER met someone who would do this? EVER? Or is this just an assumption of yours? I honestly don't get it.

The way some people talk at times, they do give off that impression (I'm not speaking of here, but if you've ever heard some radicalist speaking...)

[Denisemomof4]

The way some people talk at times, they do give off that impression (I'm not speaking of here, but if you've ever heard some radicalist speaking...)

 

I understand that, to be so passionate about loving dogs and wanting to save them. But when it comes right down to it, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who, given the chance, would save the life of a dog and let a person die.

 

Thankfully that scenario will probably never be a reality, and I'm thankful for that.

 

IMO, though, I still believe it's a huge leap to make that assumption.