Rescue Remedies.myfastforum.org

xristine · Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject:

Sadly that's part and parcel of thinking that some how you 'own' dogs, animals, children etc. If you see living with them as a privilege then you don't make those nasty assumptions - instead you see your duty as making their lives as happy and as fulfilled as possible. You don't expect 'payback' or gratitude.

If you go down the 'my' route then yes, you will use a dog as a money spinner, a possession to dispense with when s/he becomes inconvenient. The kind of attitude in this particular case is a direct result of seeing dogs as possessions and thinking that a 'second hand' one must thus be a cheaper option.

The lesson has to be that dogs in rescue aren't 'worth' less nor do they have to be 'grateful' for any home that is offered - they deserve much better than that. The money given by the new family isn't a payment for that particular dog but a donation to save another life. Anyone who is serious about offering a home would be delighted to know that in homing one dog, they're saving another life too.

_________________
"Plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens."
Madame Roland

johnderondon · User Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 183

Spellbound · User Joined: 24 Mar 2009 Posts: 59 Location: Hounslow

I'm gonna have to disagree slightly with you there Xristine, Summer is MY dog, she's also 'second hand, used, preowned' or whatever other term people like to use. As my dog, it is MY responsibility to make sure she is healthy and taken care of, it is also MY responisbility to feed, love, exercise, train and protect her.
I chose to have her in my life, she didn't knock on the door and ask to live here. As humans, we choose to have dogs/kids etc and as a result we are the ones that have to provide guidance and care to them. Summer is not my housemate, she never asked to be here, she doesn't contribute to the household in any way, other than making mess and adding to the shopping bill. She is here because I chose her, thats the simple truth, like all rescue dogs, they were chosen, like a car or furniture. It's how the people treat them that matters. While I chose a lot of things in my life, my animals are the only thing that I will defend and protect to the end of the earth. Material goods can be sold or swapped but animals have feelings and can be affected by changes in their lives.

I think you're making a rather broad generalisation. Some people think of dogs as a money making thing but not everyone who says my dog is that way. Lots of people say my dog and the vast majority of them are brilliant owners, expecting only a waggling tail and a cuddle from their animals.
A lot of parents say my child but they dont use them as a breeding tool or mistreat them. In the eyes of the law, you do own that animal. If your dog attacked someone, you are responsible as you would be if your car ran over someone. You are the one who has to take responsibility for those things. Its all well and good saying you don't own an animal but you can't say, well I'm only living with it when the vets need paying or the food needs buying or preparing. The wording isn't the issue with the muppet on the thread, its the actions of said muppet that matter.

Like a lot of other things that I say are mine, ie my friends, my animals etc, if anyone so much as thinks about hurting them, I will be forced into Mama Bear mode.

Just my itty bitty ranty thing.... which wasn't meant to be ranty.

Oh and thanks John. Very Happy

xristine · Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:49 pm Post subject:

That my is the right kind of my it's said out of affection. You always know when it's the wrong my because they think 'possession' something that they have jurisdiction over rather than duty and responsibility.

As for choosing, yes, you're right humans do get to choose but they can choose with the best interests of the dog in mind or they can choose out of self interest. With the former the 'my' becomes the affectionate one; you recognise your choice has put an animal in a position she didn't ask to be in and you do your best to make her happy.

The poster in question quite clearly thought that a rescue dog should be cheaper - everything that was said was in terms of economics. However, from a rescue point of view there's no way anyone would willingly risk letting a dog go from one bad situation to another so you'd do your best to rule out certain types of exploitation - for example spaying bitches so they don't get used as breeding machines. Once you see rescue as involving a duty to the dog for what follows after then simply finding a home isn't enough - it has to be a good home. The poster Dee was pointing to doesn't see the world like that so there is a big gap between their expectations - find a homeless dog any home - and the rescue's sense of responsibility - find the homeless dog a good home. For me those two views are the difference between *my* as a possessive pronoun and *my* as a term of endearment. And now I have a horrid feeling that I'm sounding pompous! Always a danger! Embarassed

I don't think you're ranting - your entitled to your view. Wink

_________________
"Plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens."
Madame Roland

Bud · Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:29 am Post subject:

I know I keep I repeating my self............but MY male SBT was bought from kennels for £60 in tact...4 times I was asked while walking him can you bring him round to my bitch...in the end I wouldn’t go out until he had been done I was terrified....£60 to the kennels I got him from was nothing to them...they were supported by the council and any way all SBT were “got rid of after a bit” NICE..........

Spellbound · User Joined: 24 Mar 2009 Posts: 59 Location: Hounslow

You don't sound pompous at all!

I think the poster in question is a complete <insert expletive>.

Rescues should spay/neuter as a matter of course in my opinion. Surely it defeats the purpose of operating a rescue if you're not going to try and solve the problem of dog over population. If people want a pet, then they'll probably be grateful for only having to pay the adoption fee as neutering, chipping etc, the things that a lot of rescued dogs have already had done, tot up to more than that anyway! as has been confirmed, the only people with a problem with the amount are probably those that don't want a pet but something else entirely.

It's people like that who are the problem in the first place. Maybe we should just neuter them instead/as well. It never fails to surprise me how anyone could have an animal just because it's the fashionable thing to do, or they can make a quick buck. Shoot the lot (people that is) much easier and problem solved then!

LisaH · User Joined: 05 Aug 2009 Posts: 25 Location: Staffs

what a nob ! glad he didn't get the chance to get his hands on one of the dogs.
Maybe in a yr or 2 when his new dogs pups are in your care you should send him the bill from the vets !!