Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Novel Solution To Unwanted and Abandoned Pets - dogs Discussion Forum

I threw this idea out on another post, but didn't get a response.

I will be talking with several Legislators in Austin, Texas about this and other ideas in the coming months and would like feedback from pet owners. Here's the thought.

Since pet ownership is a privilege and not a "right", why not legally require all pet owners to be bonded (or purchase insurance) in order to encourage them to take financial and moral responsibility for their pets?

If one abandons or give up his/her pet (instead of upholding the responsibilities he/she has for the well-being of that pet, or, at the very least, trying to find a new home for the pet), the bond (or insurance policy) covers the cost of maintaining that pet at a shelter until it can be adopted out.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), that person would probably not qualify for coverage in the future (or be required to pay high premiums);

Therefore, he/she would probably lose the legal right and privilege to own a pet in the future, but again, pet ownership is not his/her "right"....this spoken from a veterinarian who gets countless requests throughout the year to euthanize perfectly healthy pets simply because they have become an inconvenience to their owners (needless to say, I don't do it). Its a controversial subject and I welcome the discussion

Hi Chris, I don't disagree with you in the least, but what you are suggesting is legislating personal responsibility and making citizens accountable for neglectful behavior - making it law for them to be ethical and financially responsible.

I'm all for it, but do you actually live in the United States?

You can barely get the citizens of this country these days to properly care for their own "human" offspring, honor their marital vows, and financial commitments - easily disposable and replaceable, all.

As with everything else - GOOD people are going to care for their pets without being "made" to do so, while the rotten ones aren't going to abide by the laws anyway.

Chris C. Pinney, DVM: Yes, yes- we KNOW you are a veterinarian.

(You include the letters after your name, for Christ's sake- do you think you have to keep repeating it in your posts??) Good for you- it is a noble and difficult profession, and one you should be proud of.

Now, it has been acknowledged and you will be given your due deference and credibility.

Chris, I agree with Rocky.

My vet goes through the same thing (she refuses to put them to sleep also).

I wish people like that couldn't have pets, but I think making pet owners buy insurance would unduly burden people whose pets would never need it.

Such a law would certainly keep lots of responsible folks from getting pets, due to the expense.

It's expensive enough to keep a pet now, with neutering, yearly shots, monthly heartworm, tick & flea meds, and decent food, IF you're lucky.

(I got a puppy from my vet, who someone dumped on the veterinary front porch--with a broken leg.

He was about 8 weeks old then.

He's now just over a year old, 80 lbs., beautiful animal, and recovering from his second surgery on that leg by the ortho vet, who is about 100 miles away and NOT cheap.

And we have 3 other pets, who are healthy, knock on wood).

Like Rocky says, the rotten pet owners probably wouldn't abide by the law anyway, although I don't think some of them start out rotten.

Perhaps it might be better to pass a law that requires vets and shelters to report irresponsible people who try to kill/get rid of their pets to Animal Control or the local sheriff, who can then heavily fine that person, probably resulting in an open warrent which could be enforced by a trip to jail should they get pulled over while driving, etc..

I live in Georgia, and don't know of any state law like that on the books here, The legislature would have to define the law carefully for shelters (most lawmakers are attorneys, unfortunately, who can and do thwart any effort to write legible laws--I know a few of those folks, I'm an attorney myself).

"Ownership" might be hard to prove for abandoned pets, it might be a good idea to require microchippig pets upon adoption or first visits to vets.

Mine cost me $40 each, much cheaper than insurance premiums.

Good luck with your legislators.

I'd like to know what the outcome is.

Noted. So do you have an opinion on the subject at hand?

Thanks for your feedback and that of Rocky's.

Good insights.

Why yes, Dr. Pinney, as a matter of fact I do. First, I am not entirely clear on your reason(s) for stating, and emphasizing, that pet ownership is a privilege not a right.

Second, I am not sure one can make such a black and white delineation between the two regarding same.

Although I agree that perhaps it should be considered a privilege, I don't think it falls completely out of the realm of understood and accepted principles of something everyone is entitled to do, with few exceptions.

Although it does not quite touch the ground with the footing of a baseline right, per se, it is not so highly regarded that only those possessing certain criteria will be given the opportunity to do, so as to be considered a privilege, either.

And neither rights nor privileges are without context.

So, when you consider that in this capitalistic society wherein pets are still considered property, and everyone is not only allowed but encouraged to acquire as much in the way of financial gains and material things, it would be extremely difficult to legislate who can own what or, more importantly, who cannot.

If this were about, for example, your neighbor Mr.

Smith, who has a tendency to just keep purchasing bicycle after bicycle because he wants them and can afford them, but then Mr.Jones tires of them quickly and moves on to the next bicycle of the week, leaving the others to be on a rack somewhere (legally, but just taking up space) or just stored on his property never to be taken riding again (or maybe never cleaned, or mechanically inspected, etc.- just forgotten about), or maybe he just gives them away to friends or even strangers because he just doesn't want them anymore- there is no way the law is going to come in (unless he is doing something illegal regarding the bicycles- which in this example, he is not) and tell him "Hey, since you don't ride the last 10 bikes you bought as much as we think you should, and we don't think you kept them shiny enough- you cannot own anymore bikes without the new "I get tired of my bikes very quickly and just ignore them or bring them to the bike junkyard" Insurance, which you might not qualify for anyway.

Really, even with something that would require insurance, such as a car, there is no limit to how many one can buy, regardless of whether the past 15 cars you owned were registered, insured, sold, destroyed, totalled or set on fire in your backyard- it was your property. So, although the Constitution doesn't specifically give anyone the right to own a dog, per se, it gives us the right to acquire and own as much or as little property as we so choose and are able.

And furthermore, even if dogs were not still considered property (which people believe is so archaic)- we don't even have really any legal requirements for someone to have children, which are not considered property, and all you have to be is physically able to do it and not only can you have as many as you want, the government will pay for them or take custody of them if you cannot, so I don't see lawmakers codifying the rights and wrongs of either one of these anytime soon.

You don't have to have insurance in case you don't fulfill your responsibilities with regard to your child- if your child ends up in DCF custody, then so be it- your commitment is basically done.

And then you start getting into what, exactly, those responsibilities are for a parent and what, precisely, is necessary for a child's well-being.

The same would happen with dogs.

What I might see as my obligation, responsibility or commitment to my dog for his well-being might be very different than the next pet owner's view.

Maybe I take my dog to the vet for his regular check-ups, when he is sick, when he is hurt, or when I notice something is a little "off"- but someone else goes for the yearly check-ups?

Has one fulfilled their obligation and one has not?

And, if they both did, then why would anyone bother to do any more than is required- the only ones who would go above and beyond are the ones already doing it now.

So, currently considered property, it would be very difficult to legally require something, like insurance, to have one when that is something that some people just cannot afford, or just can't get for whatever reason they might be uninsurable, then it will be "Well, I can't have a dog because I don't have a lot of money, and that is not fair!" - then you'll REALLY be getting into whether it is a right or a privilege when it becomes something that only say middle and upper class people are allowed to do because of the law- now you'll REALLY have a problem re: what is someone's right- esp.

With the government involvement.

Furthermore, it is well-documented (as I know you are aware, if anyone is- you are) that dogs have been found to be so very beneficial to humans in so many ways- healthwise, for example, people who have dogs tend to have lower blood pressure, etc., etc.- (I don't have to list them all- there are numerous health benefits linked to owning, or just being with a dog on a regular basis, particularly for children and the elderly), so now you want to try and tell the people that can't afford to be bonded or insured as you suggest that they cannot (legally) own a dog because they can't afford it- so then you will be denying an entire class of people the known health benefits of owning a dog because they are poor or uninsurable.

Now you will REALLY REALLY have to delineate as to what rights people have because you will have a discrimination issue to face down the road.

(In my professional opinion, I think the law, if it were passed, would be struck down as unconstitutional the very first time it was challenged.) I realize you are talking specifically insurance to cover a pet's time at the shelter, but to "encourage them to take financial and moral respnsibility for their pets" will not begin and end the day you give it up.

And even if you could confine it to those very specific circumstances- what if someone can't try to find a new home for their pet?

Maybe they are deployed or relocated suddenly- through no fault of their own.

So they go to defend our country, and when they come back, IF they come back- now they can't have another dog??

Because they didn't even try to fulfill their obligation as required by (your) proposed law?

(How inconsiderate of them to go over there on a moment's notice, leaving a dog they love very much to an unknown fate, much like themselves, and putting their life on the line to defend our freedom to sit on our a#*es and post in this thread??!

Then, they come back and it's- NO more dogs for them )??

And I suppose at this point you are saying, "Well, of course there will be exceptions.".

But really, how are you going to say that the way one person dumps a dog at a shelter is OK, but the way another one does is not OK, particularly when (unfortunately) THAT part of the equation is NOT codified and it is perfectly legal to do that (moral, etc.

Is another issue entirely- and one that cannot be written into law).

So, Mr. "emergency deploy" for the military would be OK, but the person who is elderly and just cannot handle a dog that was given to them by circumstances, say, and has no one to give it to, but they are ill and must go into hospice so they have no choice- would that not be OK when their dog ends up at the shelter?

Or would that be an exception, too?

And what about the single mother working 2 full-time jobs to feed her family but has to move immediately but the new place won't allow her to bring her pet, much to the heartbreak of her and her children, but she is an immigrant with all her family in another country so no one to help, and she doesn't speak the language or know how to re-home a dog?

Would THAT be OK, or when she does get on her feet and move her children to a nicer place, etc., and they would be able to have a pet again, they cannot because they won't be 'insured' due to their last violation of their insurance contract (which they probably couldn't even read at that time because she doesn't speak English!)?

And of course there are many other scenarios to illustrate the point that sometimes we might find it acceptable (not desirable, of course, but acceptable) to surrender your pet under certain circumstances.

And now to codify that into law would be having to say that the law should be what YOU might find acceptable as to surrendering your pet, and not what you don't.

Law really isn't supposed to work like that. And with regard to your propsed law, what exactly do you think it should be regarding it's classification?

Should it be civil or criminal if violated (invoking fines, etc.

V. criminal punishment)?

Because, if you are going to invoke fines (we have lready gone over the consequence of not being able to have another pet because of the insurance or unaffordable premiums- which could be the only thing, in theory), the same people who couldn't afford the insurance aren't going to be able to pay the fines.

And, we already know the lack of enforcement of criminal law regarding animals. But, actually, as complicated as all of that really is, in the end it won't matter.

The only people who will follow the new law you propose are the same ones that follow the current laws regarding pet ownership now.

And the majority of unwanted pets that are thrown away as unwanted or abandoned are not coming from that group of pet owners.

So, there will still be the people that do exactly what you are saying because they don't care enough about their pet in the first place, or they wouldn't be asking you to euthanize their pets or dropping them off at the pound, etc.

What makes you think that those same people will follow this law?

They will just get dogs without the insurance, and then you will still have the problem you are talking about, still without recourse.

Thus, you will still have the animals people get anyway- they will just leave them OUTSIDE your office or the shelter or the pound since they don't have the proper credentials for owning a pet, so the shelter will get no history on the animal (they hardly get any now), no information whatsoever that could affect the animal's health (and theirs) so they will have to start from scratch to find out if there is something wrong (healthwise, etc.

So the vet for them will have to start from nothing- no background;

No temperament desc., age, aggression tendencies- nothing)- which will make the animal 10X harder to adopt out than it might have been if they had known anything about it instead of finding it tied to their fence outside.

Now, your law has already (hypothetically) made it more expensive (therefore, less appealing, if not impossible) to adopt an animal from a shelter because you'd have to have the prerequisite insurance to be able to do so, so less people will be adopting from these places (Hell, if you're going to spend however many hundreds or thousands of dollars anyway- why not get a purebreed in the first place, right?

And those who just can't afford it won't get any dog) who might otherwise have done so.

Thus, less animals will be adopted out and therefore will, ultimately, languish in shelters to end up being euthanized. Wasn't that what you were trying to prevent in the first place?

I don't agree. Look at the people who have had to get rid of their bully breeds after being required to have insurance in an area, or the ones who the extra insurance is a financial hardship on those who do follow the law, even though there has never been an incident with their dogs. All that will happen is the good owners will be burdened more than needed, and have extra expenses which would be better put into vet care or training or other pet expenses. The bad owners who are the troublemakers are not going to follow the law anyway.

They will continue to have uninsured, unlicensed, unneutered, free running pets, and get away scott free, while the good owners just end up deeper in debt because of what the bad owners did. The only solution is to punish bad owners!!

Up fines and harden laws for hurting, abusing, or abandoning animals, or such. Stop punishing good owners!!!

I think that your plan would be too hard to enforce and in the end will only hurt the "good" owners. A different angle to look at would be to decrease the amount of dogs going to the shelter in the first place.

Crack down harder on back yard breeders.

Require that all dogs be spayed/neutered by a certain age.

If a person does not want to have their dog spayed or neutered then they could pay a LARGE fee for that privilege.

Those fees could be used for the shelter dogs or to assist others with the cost of spaying/neutering (although if you can't afford that you shouldn't have the dog in the first place).

ANY plan like this would be hard to enforce.

You'd HAVE to have the support of your local law enforcement and they rarely enforce the current laws that are in place right NOW concerning dogs...

You made some good points.

Thanks.

Not only do i believe this type of pet insurance is an unnecessary burden, i do not think animals deserve the rights that you people believe they deserve.

I regard pets as personal property and treat them as such, i personally take care of my property, but it is not for me or you or anyone else to force someone else to take care of theirs, much less force persons like myself who do care for their property to in effect pay another tax to sustain someone elses unwanted property.

Sure it is sad when people have animals and dont care for them, if you dont like it donate to a charity..

But dont start suggesting that others should have to foot the bill because you are saddened by peoples carelessness.

Really, "shareena the great"?

Tell me, please, what "rights" do 'we' believe animals deserve that you don't?

Wait- never mind- don't even answer that.

I cannot sustain a dialogue with anyone who has "the great" at the end of their name, unless they are a superhero.

All of them. I dont believe animals have any rights, it is all based on the discretion of their owners.

They are purchased, traded, used as farm hands, eye dogs, to find drugs, and for personal amusement among other things, but they do not get to decide what they will be used for or how they will be treated.

They dont choose their owners, although I like most people like to attribute human characteristics to my pets, and enjoy believing that my dog Alexander the great (hence the name strega, next time you want to take a chance and make a personal attack think of something a little more creative that doesnt make you look like a stupid a-hole) picked me out at the pet store, i dont really think he did.

I chose him because of his up beat personality and his huge sonar ears, I own him for my amusement, because it makes me happy to have something to take care of.

Its not his right to have an owner like myself who does take care of him, it is mere luck that he does.

If you want to give animals rights then you need to also give them human attributes and allow them to take care of themselves with out our intervention (something that has been bred out of most domesticated animals) otherwise they are simply property and can be treated as such.

Thank you, Dr. Pinney. I really must say that on the surface, I think your idea is a good one- in theory.

It is in the execution that I foresee problems. I would like to discuss this further with you, if you are open to that (strega419@live.com), as I feel it is an extremely important matter, your reasoning behind your proposal is a point that I don't think anyone doesn't see.

I agree that it is a problem, and I do laud your efforts to even seek a solution, as it has been my experience that there aren't enough veterinarians who are willing and able to become involved in animal law(s), as you are. Whatever the outcome, it is at least brought to someone's attention. Godspeed, friend.

"Require that all dogs be spayed/neutered by a certain age.

If a person does not want to have their dog spayed or neutered then they could pay a LARGE fee for that privilege.

" Yeah, this is already in place in some places!

And guess what? It's failing epically.

EPICALLY. Again, only punishes the good owners.

I don't plan on breeding any of my dogs, and I certainly don't plan on castrating any of them either.

Why in God's name should I pay extra?

I can train and supervise my animals, they're not going to breed.

I will not pay out my nose simply so they can keep their sex organs and enjoy the health benefits of normal hormone levels.

I absolutely will not. Anyway, here's some info on the massive failure that is mandatory spay/neuter: The ASPCA is opposed to MSN (mandatory spay/neuter), as is the AVMA, as is Alley Cats Allies...

Check out the info for Santa Cruz, CA, Los Angeles, and Lake County, CA, as well as Montgomery County, Maryland;

Aurora, Colorado;

King County, Washington;

Pinellas County, Florida and Fort Worth, TX.

None of it is positive - in fact, falsified numbers were presented by the Santa Cruz animal control to the public, when in fact the numbers presented to the government told a very different story. MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER DOESN'T WORK.

More animals die in shelters due to MSN, and the pediatric spay/neuter dates set forth are dangerous to dogs' health.

I agree, to me this seems like another unnecessary tax fee or fine that will hinder good law abiding pet owners, and be ineffective to others who just don't care. Also, I have a dog who is right about that age, when they say its time to neuter them, and i have been debating whether i want to or not.

My main reason for doing it would be to curb the behavioral problems that come with having an intact dog, but my vet told me that it can cause a whole other slew of health problems.

I had my rabbit snipped 2 years ago and he is definitely much less mischievous...

But he also rarely leaves his cage, and he became quite obese when i let my husband take over feeding him...

Needless to say i put him on a diet and got him back down to a healthy size.

I guess what it comes down to is, are the behavioral problems that bad in intact dogs that it is worth getting them neutered?

And will my active little pup become a fat lazy boring slob if i do?

Your idea is interesting but requires a lot of fine tuning.

Your idea would allow only people with money to have a pet.

There are the poorer people in our society who have pets and love them unconditionally but could never afford the insurance you are proposing.

Perhaps education about the pet they are adopting/buying as I did prior to buying my first English Mastiff.

I still have him and a female.

They are 11yrs and 10 yrs respectively.

They are expensive but I found that out before I got them.

How sad that people think they want a dog and then ask to euthanize them when they become inconvenient.

My dogs are members of my family.

So, I do like your idea in general but it needs work.

And, bravo to you for not euthanizing the healthy pets.

Thanks for caring so much.

Your idea is interesting but requires a lot of fine tuning.

Your idea would allow only people with money to have a pet.

There are the poorer people in our society who have pets and love them unconditionally but could never afford the insurance you are proposing.

Perhaps education about the pet they are adopting/buying as I did prior to buying my first English Mastiff.

I still have him and a female.

They are 11yrs and 10 yrs respectively.

They are expensive but I found that out before I got them.

How sad that people think they want a dog and then ask to euthanize them when they become inconvenient.

My dogs are members of my family.

So, I do like your idea in general but it needs work.

And, bravo to you for not euthanizing the healthy pets.

Thanks for caring so much.

Your post angers me for a number of reasons.

Animals do not reserve the rights that "you people" think they deserve?

You refer to a living, breathing, helpless animal as "property"?

I think that is is wonderful that you claim to take care of your "property", but many others do not.

You claim that it is not for you or me to force someone to take care of their animals...

Oh sorry, "property".

Recently in my area, a woman left her 18 animals and abandoned her home, leaving them to starve to death.

Do you not think she should be punished for this?

What about cases of teenagers who find enjoyment in setting cats and dogs on fire?

Is that not a big deal since you regard these animals as objects instead of living creatures?

I do not think that you realize that cruelty to animals can be an indication of a major psychological illness.

Many of the infamous serial killers and sociopaths found enjoyment in torturing animals as a child.

Also, based on your own claims as animals being "property", individuals have a responsibility to maintain their "property"!

Animals are not inanimate objects.

They are depended on their owner for their care.

Do you consider children as "property" also?

Children are also helpless, depending on the care and nurture of their provider.

Is it not "our problem" if someone does not take proper care of their kids?

I do not believe that all owners of pets should be required to purchase insurance in the unfortunate event that they would have to give up their pet.

I personally can not think of any circumstance that I would ever give up any of my animals.

I also think that a law such as the one proposed would discourage pet adoption, causing even more helpless, loving animals to be put to sleep in shelters.

I do donate to my local shelters.

I only adopt animals from kill shelters.

I do not think that pet owners such as myself should take on an extra financial burden due to scum who mistreat and give up their animals for no good reason.

It is the irresponsible that I think should pay.

If you can't take care of an animal, or can't afford to get it fixed, then DO NOT GET ONE!!

Owning an animal requires patience, compassion, and love.

These are qualities that I think Shareena the great lacks.

Shareena- your "property" would most likely be better off given to a person who can give them a loving home, and regard them as a member of the family, not as "property." You seem like a heartless person, and I hope you do not have children.

I feel sorry for you and your "property".

Your post angers me for a number of reasons.

Animals do not reserve the rights that "you people" think they deserve?

You refer to a living, breathing, helpless animal as "property"?

I think that is is wonderful that you claim to take care of your "property", but many others do not.

You claim that it is not for you or me to force someone to take care of their animals...

Oh sorry, "property".

Recently in my area, a woman left her 18 animals and abandoned her home, leaving them to starve to death.

Do you not think she should be punished for this?

What about cases of teenagers who find enjoyment in setting cats and dogs on fire?

Is that not a big deal since you regard these animals as objects instead of living creatures?

I do not think that you realize that cruelty to animals can be an indication of a major psychological illness.

Many of the infamous serial killers and sociopaths found enjoyment in torturing animals as a child.

Also, based on your own claims as animals being "property", individuals have a responsibility to maintain their "property"!

Animals are not inanimate objects.

They are depended on their owner for their care.

Do you consider children as "property" also?

Children are also helpless, depending on the care and nurture of their provider.

Is it not "our problem" if someone does not take proper care of their kids?

I do not believe that all owners of pets should be required to purchase insurance in the unfortunate event that they would have to give up their pet.

I personally can not think of any circumstance that I would ever give up any of my animals.

I also think that a law such as the one proposed would discourage pet adoption, causing even more helpless, loving animals to be put to sleep in shelters.

I do donate to my local shelters.

I only adopt animals from kill shelters.

I do not think that pet owners such as myself should take on an extra financial burden due to scum who mistreat and give up their animals for no good reason.

It is the irresponsible that I think should pay.

If you can't take care of an animal, or can't afford to get it fixed, then DO NOT GET ONE!!

Owning an animal requires patience, compassion, and love.

These are qualities that I think Shareena the great lacks.

Shareena- your "property" would most likely be better off given to a person who can give them a loving home, and regard them as a member of the family, not as "property." You seem like a heartless person, and I hope you do not have children.

I feel sorry for you and your "property".

Shareena- I see you bought your dog from a pet store.

Have you ever considered adopting an animal?

I hope not- shelter dogs should receive love and compassion, something you obviously lack!

I am glad you use him for your "amusement".

What will happen if he stops being so "amusing"?

Puppies become dogs, and then senior dogs.

They also get sick.

Paying a large vet bill is not "amusing" but necessary!

When your animal dies, do you feel any mourning?

Or is it like a television breaking?

( damn, my "property" broke, guess I need to replace it!) I own a ten year old min pin currently, who is a grumpy old man.

He sleeps, eats, and poops.

I love him dearly, but his "amusing" puppy years are over.

I can't believe how ignorant you are.

If animals should have rights they should be able to take care of themselves w/out our intervention?

Well, there are many animals who are in the wild that can take care of themselves, but they do not have the rights you are referring to.

According to what I am understanding from your statement, we should relinquish our unwanted, unaltered dogs and cats into the wild to fend for themselves, so they can have "rights".

The pet population is out of control enough as it is.

So we can have tons of animals running wild, and having litters of even MORE unwanted animals!

Maybe some of these newly "wild" animals will start attacking our own well cared for pets in our back yards because they are looking for a food source.

After all, these animals are having to take care of themselves, they need to eat!

I hope they can make time to keep themselves current on vaccinations!

Maybe hunting season can be expanded to killing dogs and cats for sport.

I am being highly sarcastic.

These ideas are just ridiculous as what Shareena really believes.

Shareena-I hope someone drops you off in the wild and you can try to take care of yourself.

Ugh... everything Shareena says angers me.

Sure, don't be a responsible pet owner and get him fixed.

If a female dog is in heat, and your dog gets loose and impregnates her, no big deal!

Animals are just property anyhow.

The unwanted pups can just be disposed of in a dumpster, like any other unwanted object.

You are the reason that shelters are overpopulated, and innocent animals die.

It would be wonderful and ideal to decrease the amount of dogs going to shelters.

I also agree that owners should pay a strict fine if they do not alter their animals.

But like Katherine said, this would be hard to enforce.

More unwanted animals would be dumped on the side of the road, to try to fend for themselves.

At least if an unwanted animal is taken to a shelter, they may have a second chance at life with someone who wants another member of the family.

( not property- SHAREENA the awful!) That is what dogs are!

They are family members, who offer unconditional love to their owners.

I will only adopt my "family members" from kill shelters, and they turn out to be the most loving dogs you could ever dream of.

Please don't buy while others die!!!

Emily-I believe that all animals should be altered.

You can train and supervise your animals, but what happens when a female is in heat, and her scent is carried to the male dogs in your neighborhood?

You could easily have unaltered male dogs circling your home, waiting for the chance to "get it on" with your dog.

You say do not plan on breeding your dogs.

Good luck! And what are the "health benefits" of not altering your animals?

I really would like to know.

The health benefits OF altering your animals are simple- less unwanted animals in shelters, or dumped, and DEATH!

Visit a high kill animal shelter, it will open your eyes.

There are so many loving dogs all with large red "urgent" cards outside their cages.

It is heart breaking.

If your statements that more animals die in shelters due to MSN, I challenge you to show me the data!

I like how you've tried to villainize me because my views differ from your own.

But the fact is that people wouldn't have animals in their company if it weren't for amusement or use as a tool, or for food.

I doubt many people out there would own a pet for the sheer responsibility of taking care of another creature.

I certainly did not purchase my dog or my rabbit because i wanted to spend money on vet bills, or pick up poop, or clean up after them when they take every single toy out of their toy box and litter them across the house, but that's part of the package.

If i didn't find them amusing to watch or play with then i wouldn't have bothered to have them at all.

If they died i would probably be upset and yes i would probably replace them, most people would.

You may not want to admit it but the reality is that when your pet dies you don't go the rest of your life with out another because they are irreplaceable. I'm sure there were some exhausting mental gymnastics going on in that pea sized brain of yours for you to be able to twist what i said into "According to what I am understanding from your statement, we should relinquish our unwanted, unaltered dogs and cats into the wild to fend for themselves, so they can have "rights"." i never said that, nor did I imply it.

I also didn't say that animals in the wild should have rights, they don't and i don't propose we start giving them any.

My point is simply until my dog starts working, buying his own food, pouring it into his own dish, cleaning up after himself after taking a dump,and as you so cleverly put it schedule his vet visits and vaccinations, i purchased him, therefore own him, and will treat him like property, if you want to twist that around so it fits your perception of what property and ownership mean then by all means do so.

After all, you have yourself admitted to OWNING a dog, the very definition of own is to hold as property, so i fail to see an issue with calling it as such.

Back to the issue, because i and you apparently are able to hold animals as property you should take care of them and afford their expenses, if not you have the option to give them up, but i don't feel that i or other responsible OWNERS should be forced to foot the bill via an insurance meant to cover other people unwanted pets.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet