Event Horizo Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Ash he's simply written an article about his daily occurences. Does it really matter if it was written 'facebook style.' And does it really matter if his statistics aren't spot on? Stop analysing it too much. Yes i know it's in the USA but i simply found the extract quite heart wrenching. I have rescue dogs but i simply couldn't do his job. Infact people that do these jobs i have the uttermost respect for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 If the fee for adopting a dog was £500 then that's our adoption pool down by 95% (sorry, but it's true, we have people who won't pay the £125 that we charge currently). It would price me out of the market too - no matter how much I love my animals, there is no way that I could save the money to be able to afford to pay that much to adopt a dog. That's almost a whole month's income for me. I'm not suggesting that the fee for adopting a dog would be £500. - (£125 is slightly higher than it was in Germany when I adopted Louis. The money you pay (I paid 125 Euros) helps to support the Tierheim.) When I adopted Bonnie (our previous dog) in 1991 from an animal shelter in the UK, I paid a smallish amount to cover the cost of spaying and her first batch of immunisations and made a donation to the shelter to help them keep running. The £500 charge for the sale of a neutered dog would apply to commercial sales and would be aimed at discouraging those who 'breed for profit'. (I'm aware that the Kennel Club would complain, and that show dogs are not allowed to be neutered, but if you really want to go in for that - and at one time, my girlfriend showed Newfies - then you should (IMO) be expected to pay for your hobby. The much higher charge (£2500) for the sale of un-neutered dogs does look like an attempt to discourage the sale of such animals - and that's exactly what it is.) In time, the 'puppy mills' - the irresponsible breeders - would be driven out of business. During the first few years, there would be no shortage of dogs in Rescue centres and many people would go there for a dog. If things changed, if the number of abandoned dogs reduced and became insufficient to meet the demand, the punitive fees could be reduced. The £100 annual licence fee for a neutered animal may sound high, but it isn't. I don't know how much 'Home Again' (or which ever company in the UK provides the service) but I pay about £30 a year to have my dogs on their database. (It would be £20 per dog, but I get a discount for having 2.) If all dogs in the UK were microchipped and all dogs were on a national database, then it would be fairly easy for the local Animal Welfare agencies/Police to track a dog and there would be no need to pay money to a commercial organisation to help recover your lost dog. A useful 'carrot'. The 'stick' bit of the proposal : Should anybody abandon a dog (my most recently acquired dog - the one who followed my son home - had been abandoned. - His owners had moved house and left him to fend for himself.) then the owner could be traced and punished. The annual licence fee would also cover an annual check-up by a vet and annual immunisations. I pay rather more than £80 per dog for that, so a tracking service, an annual check-up and annual immunisations for £100 sounds like value for money. The suggested charge of £2500 for a licence for an un-neutered dog is intended to be a deterrent. Un-neutered dogs - particularly un-neutered stray and abandoned dogs - cause problems. When we got Jack, we were aware that he had been sexually active recently. The people who dumped him had not only made his life miserable (he was half-starved and had worms) but had caused problems for other dog owners. - According to the vet, he had probably sired a number of unwanted litters. If you want to keep un-neutered dogs then (IMO) you should pay a high fee to cover the costs of those problems. My dogs are very much a part of our family. They are not treated as 'children' - they aren't human and they can't be expected to behave like humans. They are a part of our 'pack' and they are treated as pack members. - Dogs know the rules of the pack through race memory and IMO, it's up to the humans who own them to learn those rules and apply them. The annual running costs are high. - If we go away for a few days, the dogs go into kennels (and that isn't cheap!) If we go away for an extended period, the dogs come with us ... I paid about £300 to take them to Europe in 2008 and £400 to bring them back last month. If we go to Europe for the summer next year (on the cards at the moment) I will have to pay about £800 to take them there and bring them back and when they get too old to travel, we won't be going to Europe for the summer. Travel rules for animals have changed recently. You can no longer carry an animal on a transatlantic flight (or on an internal flight within the US) between 15 May and 15 September - because of thermal stress on the dogs. Even outside those dates, I have to find direct flights. (Awkward, because that involves a 4-hour drive at this end and a 5 hour drive at the other.) Nobody forces me to have a dog. - I have dogs because I want to have dogs - but because I do have them, I have to adjust my own lifestyle to allow me to look after them properly. My choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Ash he's simply written an article about his daily occurences. Does it really matter if it was written 'facebook style.' And does it really matter if his statistics aren't spot on? Stop analysing it too much. Yes i know it's in the USA but i simply found the extract quite heart wrenching. It's impossible to decipher any kind of 'spot on' data in his post as they are completely unrelated stats. He starts off be talking about 90% of his dogs, then tries to relate this by switching from percentages of his place - in comparison to 9-11million animals die every year in shelters... Animals as a whole? and where in the US? In the world? In his shelter? How many animals are dying through neglect that never make it to his 72hour turn around time, and die miserably from maltreatment because their owners don't take their animals to places like this? Even if it's just USA, then considering they have around 200million cats and dogs alone, how many animals would have died anyway, but were taken to shelters because their owners; couldn't pay for them to die 'humanely'; or were badly injured; or suffering incurable illness, as they might consider a shelter to conduct their treatment better? - or as he calls them - 'people who dump them there'. Many people who can't look after their dog for any reason is unlikely to take it to this guys place after reading this. Dump the dog across town would be a better option. I have rescue dogs but i simply couldn't do his job. Infact people that do these jobs i have the uttermost respect for. I've had 2 rescue cats. I couldn't do his job either... perhaps he should look at other work considering he hates it. He quotes at the end... I hope that someone will walk into my shelter and say I saw this and it made me want to adopt If he hopes that someone will read this and suddenly have the capabilites of looking after an animal (in particular dogs) then he shouldn't ever consider working for the 'dog is life...' campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Event Horizo Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 I couldn't do his job either... perhaps he should look at other work considering he hates it. Is he really portraying he hates it? Maybe working and dealing daily with the stuff he's dealt with i'm sure he doesn't wake up with a big smile on his face thinking 'worktime'. He obviously works there because he cares BUT can you blame him for being judgemental about society And how many people actually love their job??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 why is it such a stupid suggestion that they won't want to go in a room smelling of scared dog smells and chemicals? Because they live in a kennel. An entire place that smells of scared dog and chemicals. "The Room" is just emotive tripe. Really? What makes dogs different from meat animals? The rules in abattoirs [...] Dogs wouldn't need to 'comprehend the souls of doggies gone'. They've got a pretty good sense of smell and if previous occupants of the room did panic when they were being killed You can do better than the abbatoir. Dogs aren't killed en masse, in industrial areas. They are euthanised, not slaughtered. As for panicing, dogs get injections all the time. How do they know that this injection is the one that will stop their heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Is he really portraying he hates it? Maybe working and dealing daily with the stuff he's dealt with i'm sure he doesn't wake up with a big smile on his face thinking 'worktime'. He didn't have to portray it, he said it directly... I hate my job, I hate that it exists & I hate that it will always be there... He admits that it [inferred maltreatment or poor care] will always be there... at least he spoke some sense. Assuming that my figure of 200m is roughly correct (which is just including common pets), and assuming his figures are exact, then 4.5% of common pet animals end up dying in shelters every year (if he was using his figures to show just the US) This sounds like a lot, and it is. However, I've not even began to strip out any animal that has ended up there because their owners don't have/can't afford to pay veterinary bills; or, any of the housing needs mentioned earlier; or took their terminally ill animals there; or given that there is a large percentage of USA residents who chose not to pay for personal medical insurance, let alone would insure their pets. Take these away too from the small figures we have... and what will you be left with? This. Some people that mistreat animals. A very low percentage is left here. Eliminating this small percentage is impossible, when dealing with these kind of numbers. The poster should have just written - I don't like people that mistreat animals, and please report people who do this. I would have posted a 'like' to that. He obviously works there because he cares BUT can you blame him for being judgmental about society People who are judgmental about society when they don't have a clue, cause huge unnecessary fallacies. Politicians win government with this type of naive thinking. Do we need more of it? And how many people actually love their job??? He claims to be a manager... is that paid or unpaid. I couldn't answer that question (for his case) without at least knowing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 He didn't have to portray it, he said it directly... He admits that it [inferred maltreatment or poor care] will always be there... at least he spoke some sense. . Yes. it happens. - And (IMO) you'll never eradicate it. Assuming that my figure of 200m is roughly correct (which is just including common pets), and assuming his figures are exact, then 4.5% of common pet animals end up dying in shelters every year (if he was using his figures to show just the US) This sounds like a lot, and it is. However, I've not even began to strip out any animal that has ended up there because their owners don't have/can't afford to pay veterinary bills; or, any of the housing needs mentioned earlier; or took their terminally ill animals there; or given that there is a large percentage of USA residents who chose not to pay for personal medical insurance, let alone would insure their pets. Take these away too from the small figures we have... I don't pay for medical insurance for my animals (IMO, the premiums are ridiculously high) - but I do have the money to pay for vet bills. And- when necessary - I pay them, (I chose to have the animal and I knew how much it might cost. During the last 25 or so years I've spent some $10,000 on (insurable) vet bills. The premiums would've been considerably more. I chose not to pay the extortionate premiums, but I had the money to pay the (somewhat lower) actual bills. ...and what will you be left with? This. Some people that mistreat animals. A very low percentage is left here. Eliminating this small percentage is impossible, when dealing with these kind of numbers. The poster should have just written - I don't like people that mistreat animals, and please report people who do this. I would have posted a 'like' to that. People who are judgmental about society when they don't have a clue, cause huge unnecessary fallacies. Politicians win government with this type of naive thinking. Do we need more of it? The problem (at the moment) isn't just the people who mistreat animals - they will always be there. We're all (or most of us are) aware of the 'a dog is not just for Christmas' adverts (which don't seem to be very effective.) Bonnie (the dog I got in 1991 was a well-loved dog who ended up in a (non-kill) home because her previous owners got divorced ... not a lot you can do about that, stuff happens. The major problem in the US at the moment (and it is a significant problem) ia attributable to people who have lost their homes and are now living in apartments which do not allow them to keep dogs. That's life. 'Puppy Farms - Organisations which breed animals for profit and usually don't give a twopenny damn what happens to the animal - are something else and (IMO) they should be driven out of business. I've owned dogs for most of my life. It's not a cheap option. If you want a dog, you should (IMO) be prepared to pay the cost. That cost includes being there when your animal is put down. Not an easy charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Event Horizo Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 People who are judgmental about society when they don't have a clue, cause huge unnecessary fallacies. Politicians win government with this type of naive thinking. Do we need more of it? And thats why when you were working taxis, you always liked to work in the S10 areas of town. Isn't that being judgemental too? This guy has an excuse as he sees the results day in day out. He's allowed an opinion. You aren't Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theripsaw Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Very sobering stuff, I wish everyone would consider a rescue animal first. Not suitable for everyone but everyone should at least consider it before just going for the cutest puppy or the kitten that's the 'right' colour Edit - also get their pets neutered! Can't stand blokes that see their dogs testicles as an extension of their own manhood, it's pathetic (besides you can get fake balls now so no one even need know!) Eh? Does this happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 And thats why when you were working taxis, you always liked to work in the S10 areas of town. Isn't that being judgemental too? This guy has an excuse as he sees the results day in day out. He's allowed an opinion. You aren't Sir. Aside from this being one of the most ridiculous responses, ever... I'll answer it anyway. No, it isn't being judgmental. It is working where I've learned that I can earn the most money for my time. That is called using one's brain. If others used their brains in such a way, then they may not have to try other companies to find ways of earning more, Sir Now back on topic... And thats why when you were working taxis, you always liked to work in the S10 areas of town. Isn't that being judgemental too? This guy has an excuse as he sees the results day in day out. He's allowed an opinion. You aren't Sir. He has an excuse for being judgmental? That most likely makes his opinion less worthwhile. I, Sir, am allowed to post an opinion, (within the limits of the rules of this forum). My opinion is based on the truth and reality, rather than his 'The truth hurts and reality is what it is', about his topic to which I've shown to be enormously misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.