Letters to the Editor
-
I really wish I would have caught this thread earlier...
So I could write this and actually have it read. I once pulled my car over the side of the road and threw a one-year cat out of my car, and I don't feel an ounce of guilt about it. I did at the time. I felt terrible. The act was rash -- I was at the end of my rope, but on reflection I feel excellent about my action. That animal was a menace to society... and good riddance to it. It deserved what it got. It was just ornery enough to have maybe made it as a stray for a day or two in the desert wilderness I tossed it into, but I doubt it. I bet coyotes ate it within hours. (Glad to have provided an easy meals for them... they probably deserve a break now and then, unlike this waste of fur I called a pet for a few months.) I tossed this wasted life out of my car literally hours after taking careful pains to find good homes for the last of its kittens (after they were weaned for 12 weeks). I perhaps should have euthanasized them too (bad genes) but I wanted to give them the benefit of a doubt. By the way, I was on the way to taking this monster, who was a horrible slut and shitty mother just in case you were wondering, to the same kind of nazi saps who repossessed Degeneres' animal -- a no-kill shelter over 50 miles away from my rural house -- when she clawed her way out of her box and tried to kill me as I was driving. That's when she blew it. I realized I had to take mercy on the people who were going to take charge of this animal, even if they were the masochistic, misanthropic animal-loving type, and end it then and there. If you think you're so bad ass, try making it out here fucker.
-
Ellen Degeneres video
I like Ellen a lot but c'mon, this is crazy. She messed up. I wish that the agency would have given the dog back, but if I would have had to go through what the people at the agency are going through ( death threats, constant calls...) I would have said the hell with everyone too. Anyway to see what I really think go to
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZiKHXIH0WHw
There's some extra footage and my take on the whole deal. My blogs are kind of… different.
-
"Get breed X, they're good with children," is a dangerous myth
In an "Editor's Pick" letter, doglady wrote:
"Small breeds are notoriously nippy and poor with children."
While there are some breeds (large and small) that have a genetic predisposition towards aggression, in most cases "it just ain't so." In most cases, incidents arise because of how the dog was raised or the particulars of the situation.
Incorrectly assuming that the problem is the breed will have two very bad consequences: a family may NOT adopt a dog that is well-suited to them, or, worse, they may trust a dog "because its a good breed" and end up with someone getting hurt.
Two things will falsely give the impression that small dogs are "nippy." One - it is so very, very easy to spoil a small-breed dog. When a little three-pound ball of fluff growls and tries to chase you away from its toys, it's kind of funny. Everyone laughs. Dogs interpret laughter as encouragement, so the behavior is reinforced. A year later it's big enough to hurt when it bites, but now its behavior is a lot harder to change. Two - small dogs are small enough that kids can really hurt them. Often, some small accident happens while the dog is a puppy, and it figures out that "the best defense is a good offense." Now you have a nippy dog. Usually, this problem is exacerbated by Problem One - people are more likely to tolerate this kind of behavior in a small dog than a large one.
There are lots of factors that should go into choosing the right dog for a family. While tiny breeds are rarely a good idea with young children (because the kids can hurt them, not the other way around), small-to-medium breeds may be the perfect fit. Is it really a good idea for a family living in an apartment to get a big, active dog? Or should the children just be deprived of the joy of canine companionship because their family doesn't live in the suburbs?
The idea that all ten-year-olds cannot be taught how to properly hold a chihuahua puppy is absurd. The idea that all small-breed dogs are bad with children is equally absurd. The idea that Labs, Goldens, or any other breed will automatically be good with children is dangerous and absurd.
Families who want to adopt a dog should check out books such as "Childproofing Your Dog." If adopting an adult dog, consider having a trainer come with the family to the shelter to do some temperament testing before the dog comes home. Breed should be part of the discussion - but the specific characteristics of the breed, not just its size. None of this will guarantee a happy relationship, but it's a lot better plan than "just get a Lab."
-
MY ADVENTURES in PET RESCUE
ANY story that shows how many healthy animals are PTS every single day..(well maybe they all take Sundays off,) is a bonus.
PETFINDER.COM is the best thing thats ever happened to improve the connection for adoptions.
I work with several rescue groups. OK, they are mostly coo coo,but all seem to have the animals best interest at heart.
If I placed a Dog and someone gave it away,I would be really pissed.
It's very difficult to save and then part with an animal you have nursed back from the horrid conditions in puppymills.
You only want the absolute best home for them and I feel I should be the one to deceide who shall get my new best friend.
If that is the agreement, enough said.
-
It's a numbers game...
There are logical problem with the 'it's got to be a perfect home' approach:
1. Anyone who's going to use dogs for fighting or other cruel practices can get dogs from municipal pounds.
2. Vetting potential adopters decreases the likelihood of them adopting (and they'll either go without a dog, or buy one from a pet store).
3. The objective should be to maximize the utility (in the Benthamite sense) - destroy fewer dogs, because you've placed more in homes. Yes, some of those homes will be less satsifactory - but fewer dogs will have had to be destroyed.
It only makes sense to limit the supply of the resource (i.e. the dog) if it can't be obtained elsewhere.
As for refusing to place dogs in homes with kids ... get real. Ask if the family has kids, and mention that the breed in question is/isn't a good match - but leave the decision to the adopters. The dog may come back after having eaten a toddler or two, but usually it won't.
It's a problem with charitable organizations that there's often little oversight to protect their 'customers'. George Orwell hated the Salvation Army (as did his fellow tramps) because they made you sign hymns before they'd feed you.
As for keeping very old or sick animals in the hope that someone will adopt them: those animals take the place (or resources) of a younger animal which could be adopted more quickly. One of the great things about pets is that it's possible to make the quality of life decision and euthenize them when the benefits of continuing aren't worth their misery. Refusing to face the facts for sick or old animals which have no hope of adoption is just cruel, in the most cowardly way.
Those running shelters know they can't save every dog; they should concentrate on placing as many as possible, not on an (impossible) attempt to assay their future home (which wastes time and money which could be spent on ... dogs).