Does man really need to possess pets or can we just leave the animals alone?

[goodoldrebel]

I think we all agree with you in principle we just need you to tell us how to go about it. I wouldn't feel happy watching animals starving on the streets would you?

Thanks for making a excellent point and yes this is a quagmire. I would say that a street would be an unnatural place for them to be to begin with, why not then intercede when these 'impressed with themselves' tourists go on a photo safari and see animals attacked? Is the rationale that its okay to just stand by because the species are in their natural venue? Seems a shallow way to be, to be able to turn off or stifle emotions depending on where the event takes place.

A first step is to have any domestic pet microchipped so responsibility can be forced upon the owners. In other words, when they buy an animal it must be identifiably tracked and cannot just be easily disposed. I know most shelters microchip adopted pets but breeders do not and I think this must be a mandate.

[RubyDuby]

so you pretty much want to grumble about the world and not worry so much about how to fix anything?

[RubyDuby]

Anyway, in answer to the thread title, yes I do believe people need to "possess" domesticated animals because this world is filled with people who do not think about animals the way that vegans do. There is no way around that. It's a fact of life. Either we "save" a few while millions die, or we don't save any and millions die. It may not make much of a dent, but it means the world to the few that get saved.

In a perfect world it would absolutely be better to leave the animals alone, but in a perfect world we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
In every other situation I can think of I absolutely agree that people should just leave them alone.

[missbettie]

I didn't finish reading the rest of the posts, but i just want to say this before I forget....so in order to prevent women from leaving their unwanted babies in dumpsters, abandoning, or killing them after they are born, my area (and it may be a lot of other areas i'm not sure) have a program that a few days after birth a woman can drop their baby off at a hospital, police station, and or fire station, with no questions asked, to give the baby a chance....Its kind of like the same thing with the shelters...shelters are there to give animals a second chance when their people can't. people in general, are douche bags. they don't think of animals the way we think of animals, they think of them as something they can just get rid of when they move, or when they are sick of them, or they get too expensive....but as vegans, we generally do not think of them that way (i would assume, everyone on this forum agrees with that?)...we adopt animals because we want to give them better lives. with out shelters, a lot of animals would not have that second chance...because their previous owners might just either dump them, or kill them, its a sad fact but its true....shelters are just that, shelters....they are a good thing, a necessary evil...

[missbettie]

goodoldrebel....what would be the solution to the problem then? you are just complaining about a system, but have no suggestions to fix it? perhaps we could have forgone the whole thread and just posted on the Gripes Grumbles thread...

[RubyDuby]

If you're really saying your solution would be to to get rid of shelters, I couldn't disagree more. Besides, that would never happen. What is a better answer and is hopefully more likely to happen would for there to be laws in place regarding irresponsible breeding and spay/neuter requirements.

[RubyDuby]

The idea that abuse is somehow a threat if we don't bail out these individuals is unsupported. Their are laws against abuse.

Yet it still happens. I would agree that it happens less because of laws, which is why there needs to be laws regarding breeding and spay/neuter requirements.

I truly believe that animals can live without man's intervention. In fact, I feel that man's intervention into their lives is the biggest threat to their existence. This pet idea is the same mentality that has tourists feeding the bears at the national parks and then society wonders why the bears have a hard time surviving on their own now. This forced interaction that humans impose on the animal kingdom is a selfish act. Even an inocuious act such as feeding the pigeons is this same forced type interaction we are imposing on the animals instead of just stepping back and letting them be, feeling lucky that we can observe them now and again in their natural state.

domesticated cats and dogs don't have a natural state, outside of living with humans. We can't just set them all "free".

[goodoldrebel]

I think that some are embelishing the posts I made. The answer lies in stopping the demand for pets. I know that's not going to make most feel warm and fuzzy. One way is make the purchasing of a pet a very involved legal process that commits the purchaser to the animal for its entire natural life-- (as well as mandatory microchipping as I stated above).

Secondly, an annual tax should be imposed on all pet owners (discouraging demand). Yes, this would penalize the rescuers but it would create owners that are truly committed to long road caring for the animal. Third, we should make it extremely difficult to just unload a pet onto a shelter. A material fine ($2000^) should be imposed on an owner who dumps his pet on the shelter. Decedents wills will also have this burden, some of you might think this unfair but I think at least its a consistent application.

Tough love? yes, but still love. I won't kill even a cockroach so why would I need to possess an animal. I am not so impressed with myself that I think I am the 'savior' of the animal. For the most part pet owners are just wardens. The most I could do is give it freedom. I'd like to uncage every pet bird, reptile. rodent etc. This whole idea of domesticated animals is just so humans can be entertained and pacified deluding themselves in a juvenile emotion about the expectation that the animal is suppossed to 'love' them back. Can we not all grow up and stop acting naive as if we all just fell off a cabbage truck? I don't mean we as in this forum. I mean we as humans in general.

[RubyDuby]

I think that some are embelishing the posts I made. The answer lies in stopping the demand for pets. I know thats not going to make most feel warm and fuzzy. One way is make the purchasing of a pet a very involved legal process that commits the purchaser to the animal for its entire natural life-- (as well as mandatory microchipping as I stated above).

Please quote any posts that have been embellished, but please refrain from going back and editing them before claiming they were embellished.. Microchipping is a wonderful thing [however you just went back to edit your post to add that ] This is the first time I've seen you mention discouraging the demand for pet ownership (sorry if I missed something earlier). I would not disagree with that.

Secondly, an annual tax should be imposed on all pet owners (discouraging demand). Yes, this would penalize the rescuers but it would create owners that are truly committed to long road caring for the animal. Third, we should make it extremely difficult to just unload a pet onto a shelter. A material fine ($2000^) should be imposed on an owner who dumps his pet on the shelter. Decedents wills will also have this burden, some of you might think this unfair but I think at least its a consistent application.

Tough love? yes, but still love. I won't kill even a cockroach so why would I need to possess an animal. I am not so impressed with myself that I think I am the 'savior' of the animal. For the most part pet owners are just wardens. The most I could do is give it freedom. I'd like to uncage every pet bird, reptile. rodent etc. This whole idea of domesticated animals is just so humans can be entertained and pacified deluding themselves in a juvenile emotion about the expectation that the animal is suppossed to 'love' them back. Can we not all grow up and stop acting naive as if we all just fell off a cabbage truck? I'm not that soft.

Annual licensing and Rabies vaccines are almost always required, which is basically an annual tax. I don't believe this is a deterrent. People often obtain animals spontaneously and don't think about the expenses until later. A $2000 fine to dump an animal would simply cause people to dump their animals elsewhere, or tie them in front of shelters, vets, kennels, etc. I don't think it's unfair at all to tax dickwads that dump their animals. I do think it's unrealistic. It's also unrealistic to set free domesticated animals.

[Blueberries]

Can we not all grow up and stop acting naive as if we all just fell off a cabbage truck?

I understand that this is a controversial topic but let's be nice to each other please, I've always thought of this as a friendly forum for vegans to exchange views, let's not make our disagreements personal.

[RubyDuby]

It's funny, I don't see it being very controversial on a vegan forum... I think we're all mostly in agreement. It's a tough job trying to be a rebel on a vegan forum.

[missbettie]

seriously...we are just going in circles...we all have slightly different opinions, but its kind of like posting a thread that is titled "Don't eat MEAT!!" on a vegan forum....uh....we are all vegan here...hellllllooooo...

[goodoldrebel]

With microchipping it would be extremely hard to just dump animals somewhere. The owners can be traced. Annual taxes provide a disincentive to pet ownership and also another way to track animals. As far as freedom for animals, I hope that in the future there will be no such thing as domesticated animals. I think that some people are obsessed with pets and somewhat live their life through a pet (as silly as it sounds). These people need to get a life and stop restricting another being as well as themselves. The second a pet owner finds out it has an allergy to the pet its goodbye pet. How often does that happen? Let's call it like it is. Most people get a certain type of dog because they are trying to reflect their personality through the physical appearance or behaviorism of the dog they chose. The same mentality that thinks their personality is determined by the car they own. For most of the masses its the same stimulus that drives the pet purchase I think. Just my take on human behavior in general.

[goodoldrebel]

It's funny, I don't see it being very controversial on a vegan forum... I think we're all mostly in agreement. It's a tough job trying to be a rebel on a vegan forum.

Yep, that's true. well, at least you know that I'm no yankee.

[goodoldrebel]

I don't think anyone is getting personal. I think for the most part its a great discussion we are having here as we all truly care about animals.

[RubyDuby]

With microchipping it would be extremely hard to just dump animals somewhere. The owners can be traced. Annual taxes provide a disincentive to pet ownership and also another way to track animals.

Now there you may be on to something. Right now microchipping is really only good for those people who want to keep from losing their pets. It can be a real pain in the butt for rescues and new owners once an animal is given up. It's not easy to re-register a pet under a different name. Using the chip the way you're describing is a good idea. I will say I've seen a few instances where the paperwork got switched and we were unable to find a lost dogs owner.

Most people get a certain type of dog because they are trying to reflect their personality through the physical appearance or behaviorism of the dog they chose. The same mentality that thinks their personality is determined by the car they own. For most of the masses its the same stimulus that drives the pet purchase I think. Just my take on human behavior in general.

This is very true and one of my biggest pet peeves. It's one thing to adopt a certain type of dog to fit your lifestyle... a 70 year old woman shouldn't adopt a large breed, hyper puppy, for example... but there are so many people in rescue that will only save certain breeds, or who support breeding certain breeds even though they know how many animals are euthanized due to overpopulation... I work with a girl who does a lot of volunteering with our rescue, yet she just bought her second Akita. It makes me so sad and angry. But people are people and we're in the minority. It's like how many animal lovers out there eat meat? It's over my head.

[goodoldrebel]

Now there you may be on to something. Right now microchipping is really only good for those people who want to keep from losing their pets. It can be a real pain in the butt for rescues and new owners once an animal is given up. It's not easy to re-register a pet under a different name. Using the chip the way you're describing is a good idea. I will say I've seen a few instances where the paperwork got switched and we were unable to find a lost dogs owner.

This is very true and one of my biggest pet peeves. It's one thing to adopt a certain type of dog to fit your lifestyle... a 70 year old woman shouldn't adopt a large breed, hyper puppy, for example... but there are so many people in rescue that will only save certain breeds, or who support breeding certain breeds even though they know how many animals are euthanized due to overpopulation... I work with a girl who does a lot of volunteering with our rescue, yet she just bought her second Akita. It makes me so sad and angry. But people are people and we're in the minority. It's like how many animal lovers out there eat meat? It's over my head.

Agree, 100% and I think we are on the same wave length. Nice to know someone who feels the same way about these issues and observations.

[Help_battery_hens]

Hi. I don't mean to offend you but I find your post adolescent and narrow-minded in parts. Where I totally agree that the pet industry perpetuates the cycle of breeding for profit and even the term 'owning' a pet alludes to the human speciesist view that animals are property and have less moral value than humans. However like many other responses have mentioned shelters and rescue organisations are at crisis point and are having to euthanise healthy animals, so whether or not a person or family adopts an animal to fill any void in their lives is irrelevant as the only issue of concern should be the animals welfare.
Moreover I do also agree that people acquire animals as a status symbol such as particular breeds of dog and horses to make people look more wealthy than they are. This indeed is shallow and I cannot ever agree with those individuals' actions.
I believe that humans and animals should live in harmony as equal beings, for examples two weeks ago I rescued some battery hens. I do not co sider them property but individuals who I am guardian of their care. I am there to meet their every need and to help them live a fulfilled and safe life because this is my moral duty to all other sentient beings.

[Mymblesdaughter]

I agree battery hen, I don't think that ' living your life through your pet' etc is so bad. If, for instance, someone who is on their own adopts an unwanted dog and they provide each other with companionship.

[xwitchymagicx]

In an ideal world we could leave animals alone somewhat...but as an environmentalist who has studied the subject we could never completely leave them alone due to the fact, unless we reduce OUR population some animals will always be inconvienenced.

Plus, one of my personal biggest pet peeves is people telling me to "release" "my" animals back into the wild...I live in England and I have a budgie and a canary...not exactly an option is it? lol

In the world that we live in today, I think we shall never stop having animals as companions as there are currently too many needing rescuing!!! Leaving them in shelters is WORSE than rescuing them and taking them home with you and giving them the best life possible in unfortunate (no longer wild) circumstances! As most companion animals are not even wild anymore, such as certain breeds of dog or cattle etc.

My plan is to open my own rescue centre eventually.

PS. Our cat was not a rescue...she was from one of my brother's friends who had wrong ideas about neutering. However, some ended up in rescue centres anyway, so us taking her own basically skipped that part!

Plus there are too many "back" dealings going on, impossible to force people to microchip, register, tax their animals as many animals can be locked up 24/7...tbh this could make it WORSE as people will want to hide their animals so they don't get "caught"!!!! Or if you get fined for giving your animals to rescue centres they could suffer or be killed instead! Think realistically before coming up with "rules" it isn't as easy as all that to make such things law you have to see both sides and try and work out the most ethical way of doing things!

[RubyDuby]

[COLOR=purple]
Plus there are too many "back" dealings going on, impossible to force people to microchip, register, tax their animals as many animals can be locked up 24/7...tbh this could make it WORSE as people will want to hide their animals so they don't get "caught"!!!! Or if you get fined for giving your animals to rescue centres they could suffer or be killed instead! Think realistically before coming up with "rules" it isn't as easy as all that to make such things law you have to see both sides and try and work out the most ethical way of doing things!

There will always be people breaking the law and just doing bad things, but having laws in place would most certainly not hurt the problem. Most people want to stay out of trouble.

[goodoldrebel]

Help Battery Hens - Hi, I don't mean to offend you either but I found your post to be 'out there where the buses don't run'. What did you rescue the hens from? a couple of chauvinistic and abusive roosters? Are you able to claim them as dependents and file as Head of Household status on your tax return now? You say that you meet their every need?

Seriously, you shouldn't directly insult members. I see you only have 2 posts so perhaps you can modify this behavior early in the forum.

[missbettie]

I don't think she meant to insult you....but perhaps some people kind of feel attacked buy you saying that we are adolescent by having furbabies in our homes....just saying

[goodoldrebel]

I don't think she meant to insult you....but perhaps some people kind of feel attacked buy you saying that we are adolescent by having furbabies in our homes....just saying

It's okay, let's just forget about it. It's no big deal.

[kikifromscotland]

The cycle has to stop somewhere and from a Machievellien point of view, the shelters being a venue to dump off an animal after its no longer 'emotionally fulfilling' or 'inconvienent' is keeping the vicious cycle going. It shouldn't be so easy to rid one of an animal that was purchased. Let the original owner keep the animal or find someone on their own to take the animal off their hands, in other words, - let the mindless, selfish adolescent mentality owner deal with it. If they neglect the animal then they should be proscecuted. If when an animal is purchased the buyers should know that they cannot just change their mind.--They have to realize that they are stuck with the animal for the animal's natural life and that includes expensive vet bills when the animal gets ill. If this was in force then we would see the puppy mills just fade away.

If there were no shelters people would get rid of their animals in worse ways.

Indeed, back when there were no shelters and no neutering programmes people used to shove kittens in a sack and fling them in the river, for want of an easier/ more humane way to 'get rid' of them.

Not having shelters would make things much worse for animals- you need to stamp out the pet breeders instead of shelters/ pet owners.

[missbettie]

I agree ^

I was watching an old Disney cartoon the other day and Pluto (the dog) rescued a kitten that was in a bag tied to an iron that someone through into a river!!!! People actually do this! Shelters provide a better solution.

[kikifromscotland]

I You really want a dog, go be a sheep herder, then you need a dog for a purpose. I see this phenomenon that sometimes the pets get to be the center of attention in the family instead of the focus going to the children. A pet should not be at the center of a family's emotional existence or the glue that binds the family together. That's just the epitome of shallowness.

Hi gor.

Mostly I think I agree with what you are saying (it's bad that people treat animals like commodities, pet owners should face up to their responsibilities) but I do take issue with what you've said that I've quoted above.

1. I take it you are joking when you say if you want a dog, be a sheep herder so you have one for a purpose. As a vegan, I wouldn't agree with herding sheep generally. I also don't like the idea that it's only acceptable to 'own' an animal for a purpose. A dog shouldn't be objectified and thought of merely as a tool to carry out a task as opposed to a feeling and thinking being with his or her own personality. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

2. I don't see why having a pet at the centre of a family 'is the epitome of shallowness'. I think it's great when people value their companion animals and treat them with respect and love and yes even like they are human children. Why not? They are not 'wild animals' and thrive in a family environment.

[cobweb]

Indeed, back when there were no shelters and no neutering programmes people used to shove kittens in a sack and fling them in the river, for want of an easier/ more humane way to 'get rid' of them.

True. When my mum was a kid my grandad did this regularly with their cats babies, apparently. Unfortunately this apparently gave my mum the green light to do it to one of my childhood pets aswell.
It's never going to be a clear-cut subject. As I said before, I would like to ban people from 'owning' pets, but there again I do realise it's a bit like saying I want to ban people from having children because a nasty minority of people see fit to abuse their kids.
And removing the option of shelters is like removing childrens homes, adoption agencies, and even battered womens refuges, surely?.

[pie]

i agree with what est said, i too have a horse which i bought 2 years ago because our local rescue centre doesn't have horses, and alot of horse rescue centres don't let you have them just like that. my lovely boy will have a home with me until he dies, i do not see a horse as a commodity like some people, i.e. once you've outgrown it you sell it on or once it can no longer be riden you get it put down, a horse is for life and not just for riding i say! i also have a shetland pony which i bought for my daughter ten years ago, she too will have a home for life with us, i have a cat nobody wanted too and i have two sheep, one of which was going for meat, the other is a rare breed but i won't breed from her, i love them all and don't feel bad having any of them.

[goodoldrebel]

Pie, sounds like you have a very nice lifestyle.

Cobweb, well the buck has to stop somewhere for its a continual cycle of breeding and dumping to a shelter. I don't know all the answers but I agree with you that I hope in the future there will be no such thing as a house pet or domesticated animal. We as humans can find other ways of entertaining ourselves without imposing such a will on the other creatures. I just want them left alone. They don't need us, they only need us when we screw up the environment for them. If we live ours lives as true naturalists, the animals will take care of themselves.

[kikifromscotland]

That's not strictly true. Wild animals don't need us, but domesticated animals (including cows, chickens, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs) have unfortunately been bred by humans in such a way that they can't really survive in the wild. Some cats (such as feral cats) might cope, but largely if we just chucked all of the animals currently in shelters into a big forest somewhere, they would die. As humans we have caused domestic animals to exist and we should have a duty to help them live out their days in comfort, along with spaying/ neutering and not buying from breeders to solve the root of the problem.

Pie, sounds like you have a very nice lifestyle.

Cobweb, well the buck has to stop somewhere for its a continual cycle of breeding and dumping to a shelter. I don't know all the answers but I agree with you that I hope in the future there will be no such thing as a house pet or domesticated animal. We as humans can find other ways of entertaining ourselves without imposing such a will on the other creatures. I just want them left alone. They don't need us, they only need us when we screw up the environment for them. If we live ours lives as true naturalists, the animals will take care of themselves.

[cobweb]

^ yeah I agree kiki.

[sandra]

I don't know all the answers but I agree with you that I hope in the future there will be no such thing as a house pet or domesticated animal. We as humans can find other ways of entertaining ourselves without imposing such a will on the other creatures. I just want them left alone. They don't need us, they only need us when we screw up the environment for them. If we live ours lives as true naturalists, the animals will take care of themselves.

Hello goodoldrebel and welcome to the vegan forum. I totally agree with your above post. Unfortunately, in this VERY unvegan world animals are not respected and left to live their own lives. Therefore, as a vegan I find it my duty to care for any animal that a mindless human has abandoned or neglected just as I would care for a human animal that needed my help.
I look after rescue cats, and make no apology for doing so..................I did not buy them from a breeder, I found them neglected and in need of help. If I had turned them away I couldn't have called myself vegan............they would have (in most cases) ended up dead or abused on the streets.
Until the day when the world is vegan and animals are no longer bred either for meat, milk or as pets there will always be animals who need rescuing.............and if we as vegans don't do that.............who will?

[CoolCat]

^ I agree Sandra, taking in unwanted animals - even carnivores - is a good thing. But those animals should come totally free of charge. I heard about animal welfare groups buying neglected dogs in China that would end up in someones dinner, and I heard about people rescueing spent chickens by buying them from the battery farm... but all that does is create demand. Sad as it is those animals are better left in the system, even to die, than that people/businesses get the idea of just selling abused animals to people that mean well as a new market opportunity.


(you already said you didn't get them from a breeder, and I'm not implying that you paid someone else in another way, I'm just adding to your post here)

[goodoldrebel]

Hello goodoldrebel and welcome to the vegan forum. I totally agree with your above post. Unfortunately, in this VERY unvegan world animals are not respected and left to live their own lives. Therefore, as a vegan I find it my duty to care for any animal that a mindless human has abandoned or neglected just as I would care for a human animal that needed my help.
I look after rescue cats, and make no apology for doing so..................I did not buy them from a breeder, I found them neglected and in need of help. If I had turned them away I couldn't have called myself vegan............they would have (in most cases) ended up dead or abused on the streets.
Until the day when the world is vegan and animals are no longer bred either for meat, milk or as pets there will always be animals who need rescuing.............and if we as vegans don't do that.............who will?

I commend you on having such a caring character, yet we still have to realize that the shelters are also a dumping ground for the primadonas of the world who change their mind about a pet as often as most change their clothes. We have to make it much more difficult for pet owners to just dump the animal onto someone else's shoulders. It should be an extremely expensive act. This would discourage casual pet purchases. Most people buy pets as if they are purchasing a product in a store.

[RubyDuby]

Most people buy pets as if they are purchasing a product in a store.

That is true, but wouldn't it be better if it was harder for people to buy the pet, than to punish the unwanted animal?

I will never agree that the existence or ease of shelters is the problem.

[Firestorm]

That is true, but wouldn't it be better if it was harder for people to buy the pet, than to punish the unwanted animal?

I will never agree that the existence or ease of shelters is the problem.

Very true, I think at the very least anyone who wants to buy a pet should have to be registered and then they will be responsible for it come what may, they will not be allowed to dump it just because they change their minds and no longer want a pet.
I also think if someone does want to buy a pet they should have to prove beforehand that they are capable of taking care of their pet, both financially and in every other way.
I dont agree with having pets, but if we cant change it at the very least the whole industry needs to be regulated to safeguard the welfare of the animals.

[sandra]

I commend you on having such a caring character, yet we still have to realize that the shelters are also a dumping ground for the primadonas of the world who change their mind about a pet as often as most change their clothes. We have to make it much more difficult for pet owners to just dump the animal onto someone else's shoulders. It should be an extremely expensive act. This would discourage casual pet purchases. Most people buy pets as if they are purchasing a product in a store.

Thank you for your kind comment goodoldrebel.

So, you believe that if there were no shelters humans wouldn't dump unwanted animals?
I have to say, I totally disagree with you. If they are heartless enough to want to 'get rid' of an animal they will leave it anywhere.......or maybe do something worse to it.
Just out of interest..........if you came across a stray, unwanted animal in the street who obviously needed help.........what would you do?

[snowflower]

What about people who don't bring their animals to shelters but instead just leave them tied up outside in the rain and the cold and don't feed them? Or people who get caught fighting dogs? If it weren't for shelters and volunteers, there wouldn't be anyone to take these animals from being neglected and then bring them to the shelter, and find homes for them.

Sometimes the animals in shelters are not always just dumped there, what about if someone loses their job and loses their home and has nowhere to take the animal, or as someone else mentioned, if the owner dies. It's better to go to a shelter than to dump the animal somewhere.

[cobweb]

^ I agree, snowflower, there are a small minority of genuine cases where people's situations change beyond their wildest dreams, and sometimes they can be forced to give up animals that they really wanted to keep (e.g marriage break-ups, homelessness, etc, sometimes it's hard to find accomodation where you can take your animals).

[sandra]

Yes, I don't think it's animal shelters that are the problem as goodoldrebel seems to believe..............as you both say there are unavoidable circumstances where shelters are essential.

[goodoldrebel]

I'm certainly not implying that we eradicate shelters. I'm suggesting that shelters be extremely more selective about who gets to give up their pet to a shelter. This is what I'm angry about. The shelters have become a dumping ground for mostly the Rottweilers, Pit Bulls etc. of the dog world when the mindless adolescents get tired of being responsible for the menacing breed that they are attracted to. I'm not saying that all Rottys and Pit Bulls are bad animals, What I am saying is that go to any shelter on any given day and see what kind of dogs are there for the most part. It's the result of some adolescent male who thinks that his strenght is reflected vicariously in the dog he gets, then when he gets tired of cleaning up the excrement and his mother makes him clean his room also, the result is that he dumps his dog off to the shelter.- This is usually an agressive or neglected animal that's been left outside alot of its life and the shelter gets stuck with the dog as its very hard to adopt out. Why let these adolescent menality individuals off the hook so easily. If all pets were microchipped then these irresponsible beings would have to face up instead of being allowed to just push off their nonsense on society. I know I'm stereotyping but we all know who is attracted to aggressive and abrasive breeds.

[RubyDuby]

...but, how would it be better for anybody if the shelter refused to take the unwanted dog?

[goodoldrebel]

...but, how would it be better for anybody if the shelter refused to take the unwanted dog?

Well, its kind of like the chicken or the egg dilemma. As long as there is an relatively easy way out for these mindless adolescent mentality types, then the shelters will be used for that purpose. Things have to change. I know it sounds like a tough stance but I think deep down inside you know that this is what needs to change. As long as there is a place- there will be a supply. We have to try to stop this vicious cycle.

[RubyDuby]

There is so much room for things to change in other areas, things we've already talked about such as breeding laws, spay/neuter regulations, regulations and processes in place to make it more difficult for just anyone to spontaneously obtain an animal for a pet.

With complete respect and honesty, I'm pretty sure you're one of the only people on the planet that places the main fault with shelters.

[goodoldrebel]

There is so much room for things to change in other areas, things we've already talked about such as breeding laws, spay/neuter regulations, regulations and processes in place to make it more difficult for just anyone to spontaneously obtain an animal for a pet.

With complete respect and honesty, I'm pretty sure you're one of the only people on the planet that places the main fault with shelters.

No fault placed with the shelters. It's being part of an easy cycle that inadvertantly encourages (instead of discourages) pet dumping. If owner's did not have a dumping ground then I'm sure there would be less of these types of individuals who would initially own a pet. They know that there is always a way out for them so there is really no true committment. It may be a Machievellian viewpoint but sometimes the straight story can be harsh.

[RubyDuby]

Again, I disagree. People do not get a pet thinking they are going to be dumping them at a shelter later. Making it harder to dump a pet is not a deterrent for getting a pet. It would only punish the unwanted animal.

[goodoldrebel]

Remember the biggest word in your last post was "unwanted". Pets are a want and not a need, so why should society as a whole cater to this whim that some have. Why should we live with remnants of dog excrement littering the sidewalk as no matter how much you clean up its still there? I care about animals and know that they need to be free of long term human intervention. We take away the idea of freedom from them in exchange for this idea of having a 'pet'. If I saw an animal stuck somewhere I would try to free it as long as I was not in danger. Most hunters consider themselves animal lovers and rationalize the 'culling' of deer as needed to protect the herd. This is just absolute nonsense and a way to rationalize the slaughter of animals for pleasure.

I think that more money should be spent on domestic animal control enforcement. People have to know the responsibility they are accepting by getting a 'pet' in the first place. Most know when they get a pet that they are not umbilicly tied to the animal and that they can free themselves rather simply. Remember, a pet is not a neccesity in life, it is a leisurely want. People need human interaction, not pet interaction. People's wants are not needs.

It's this idea of pets to begin with that screwed up the natural ecosystem in places such as south florida. Man has to stop this fascination with possessing animals to fill some emotional perceived need. We need to get our emotional needs from other humans and not dumb down ourselves into deluding ourself that somehow we are understood and emotional fullfilled from a pet. This is my observation from seeing so many people talking etc. to their pet as if the pet is expected to understand all. When the pet licks you on the face most of the time it smells the food on your breath. That's the reality. The weak minded somehow think that the animal is kissing you as your family would.

"Oh gee, what kind of dog would go good with my european sports car" or "Yeah, that dog is tough, let that neighbor mess with me now". It like a fetish and I know its not everybody that's this shallow but come on there is certain shallowness that leads one to get a pet instead of putting those emotional energies into another human relationship.

Have or adopt another child rather then take care of an animal which I think to a degree is a cop out from human interaction. How does one rationalize getting a pet knowing that they will contribute to all those parasitic industries like pet foods, and small animal vet practices (yes, I believe that these practices are somewhat parasitically bootstrapping themselves to the emotion weakness and shallowness of being a pet owner). This energy spent trying to bond with the animal is a cop out in my opinion from interacting on a human level. -"The lonely trucker and his dog". Is this the level some have sequestered their lives to where a big part of there interaction is with an animal. Remember, most zoos think that they doing such a service to the animal. What they are really doing for the most part is entrapping the animal and limiting its life so humans can be entertained.

Most of us work all day so the pet is living a marginal life for a good part of the day by itself or you have to have someone home all day for the pet unless the pet is crated and then what kind of life is that except as a POW. I think if pets could speak our language they would probably tell most owners to 'get a life'. Remember, the owners did not give birth to this pet.

Basic microeconomic theory tells me that as long as there are places to dump unwanted pets, there will be breeders and pet owners. Don't you think a vast majority of the prior owners go out and buy more pets after they dump their old pet in the shelter? Very few will be as bold as to have stated the observations that I made and most will judge, label and try to catorgorize my ideas but perhaps a few will appreciate my bluntness and clarity

[sandra]

If I saw an animal stuck somewhere I would try to free it as long as I was not in danger.

What if you saw an animal who would die if you did not intervene and give it a home? What would you do then, leave it to it's fate?

With all due respect, your words sound very harsh and you appear to be someone who doesn't really like dogs. You talk about their excrement all over the pavement, well I've seen a lot worse on the pavement left by humans. Plus, humans aren't 'dumbing down' just because they care for an animal. Animals may not be able to speak but they aren't 'dumb', they can show great empathy and affection..........something some humans could do with learning.

As Rubyduby said we have already discussed more appropriate ways of dealing with the problem of unwanted 'pets' already on this thread and the majority of us so far do not see the problem lying with the shelters but rather in other areas.

[cobweb]

It's simply rubbish to say that "as long as there are places to dump unwanted pets, there will be breeders and pet owners". As has been pointed out before, back in the day there really wasn't the amount of shelters there are now, and free or assisted neutering didn't exist, so unwanted 'pets' were often drowned or shot.

Personally I think the way people feel towards animals is a good marker of how kind and compassionate a person is in general, not an indication of their inherent 'weakness'.