Random stuff - including Downright Weird »   Discussion Time!

Okay, so I thought we'd have a thread where we can get a proper discussion going about a certain topic...a bit more challenging than the other threads, and somewhere where we can voice our own opinions about specific topics. The topics can be changed every few days / week, and anybody can change it once they think the last one is finished...or we can discuss two topics on the go, it's what we tend to do in the rest of the forum anyway

Rules:

1) Respect other people's opinion, even if it's not the same as your own (this is kinda the point of the thread)
2) No arguing; if you're feeling heated then don't read the thread, or if things get out of control then whisper an admin and they can rearrange it or post a new topic
3) No aggressive behaviour or inappropriate language
4) Keep the topics family-friendly as we do have younger forum members

That's all I can think of for now...if anyone can think of any others just let me know. I know none of the regulars would cause any trouble but the rules are useful for newbies.



First topic:

Off-lead dog walking (haha, might have known it was something to do with dogs huh? )

This came about because on another forum, someone with two dogs had one of their dogs on lead and one off, so one could play with a greyhound it knew. She didn't let the 2nd dog off as it doesn't like other dogs running towards it; she didn't tell the other dog owner this. The greyhound ran past her on-lead dog, and her dog bit it. This warranted an overnight stay at the vets for the greyhound, but the owner doesn't feel it's her fault.

Who's to blame? Should she have muzzled her dog, or should the greyhound's owner have had closer control of his dog?

There is a lot of stigma on dogs being walked off-lead, and indeed a lot of people advocate always walking your dog on lead for a variety of reasons. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Dogs need to be able to run and let out their energy. For some breeds (take Kasper for example) no amount of on-lead walking would tire them out, not physically or mentally. And for an active dog they need to be off-lead exploring, running and socialising with other dogs.

For aggressive dogs unfortunately, depending on how aggressive they are, they may need to be kept on-lead unless in a garden or enclosed area. I also think that aggressive dogs should be muzzled outside, as sometimes off-lead dogs will run up to them to say hello. I don't think this should be blamed on the off-lead dog or that dog's owners, I think it should be 100% the fault of the unmuzzled aggressive dog's owner. Less reactive aggressive dogs may still be able to roam safely off-lead provided they were muzzled.

It's true that walking a dog off-lead brings with it more risks and dangers, but the same as kids you can't wrap them in cotton wool!

If you have a dog which is likely to bite humans or other animals it should have to ware a muzzle then there is no worry factor for anyone plus the aggressive dog could be off the lead for a proper run and not have to be restricted in any way.

The owner should be aware, if walking the dog off-lead. I used to walk Ben off-lead all the time, but was constantly monitoring for other dogs. If I saw other dogs approaching (other than his regular playmates) I would call him back and put him on the lead until the other owner had passed with their dog, or told me s/he was safe to play. The one occasion Ben got bitten, he was on the lead and was set upon by a Boxer who was off lead and utterly uncontrolled by his elderly owner.

Posted By: KatebThis is a really hard one Red! I don't think it is 100% the fault of one dog/owner or the other. If someone keeps their dog on a lead then it's fairly obvious (especially if they've let the other dog off, as in your example) that the on-lead dog could be a problem. Therefore the off-lead dog owners should be able to keep their dog away from it. If they can't, should their dog really be off-lead?

Whereas when I see an on-lead dog, unless there are signs saying otherwise, I assume a dog has too poor recall to be let off, rather than aggressive. If an owner had one on and one off-lead dog, I'd totally think the one on-lead didn't have the recall to be let off. Especially if they didn't say otherwise. If the dog freezes and stares at our dog, if the owner grabs the dog or pulls the lead taut, or the owner is scrotey, then I'll assume it's aggressive.

Even if the dog is obviously aggressive, it's rare we will call Kasper to us and put him on-lead. Doing that actually teaches your dog that other dogs are to be feared, so we try avoid that if we can as our dog is so sensitive. We change direction, take a different route, or run / throw a ball past the dog if we know it's not too aggressive (for example there is a beagle that makes a lot of noise but doesn't snap).

Recall's another tricky one, as no matter what anyone says you will never get a dog with a 100% recall. And this is coming from the person who used to walk Ellie everywhere without a lead! Kasper's recall is nowhere near as good as I'd want itto be. He won't come instantaneously for a lot of things, but I let him off in places where I know it's safe to do so.

My main thought is that aggressive dogs must be muzzled; then there's no worry about an off-lead dog going to see them, and many aggressive dogs could still be allowed to run free. The man who had four dogs that I walked Kasper with sometimes, he had a Staffy that became dog aggressive after being attacked. Yet she was allowed to walk off-lead, amongst his other dogs and Kasper, because she was muzzled. Never had a problem with her, even though Kasper and the Doberman puppy would be jumping all over her!!

Also, another example, when we lived in Stoke there was the trainer who would walk the seriously aggressive GSD off-lead. We once rounded a blind corner (trees on either side) with Kasp off-lead, and walked right into the GSD. The trainer screamed at us and the dog and we had to turn and run the other way and call Kasper after us. If we'd been less lucky that dog could have done serious damage.

As long as Kaspar's had his injections. Don't want him catching something!

That is a great nursery Red, and exactly what they should be taught. Caitlyn is too 'keen' sometimes if she sees a dog as her other nan has 2 dogs, and her mom has a dog, so she thinks they can all be trusted. I always tell her she must ask first in case she scares the dog. Doesn't stop her scaring Foggy all the time and trying to stroke her, so we just don't trust her near dogs.

My sis-in-law has a springer and he is very scared of Caitlyn, so we don't take her round now as its not fair to either of them. My SIL has no control over her dog and he sat growling last time we took Caitlyn. He can't be shut outside as he barks constantly and throws himself against the door. He is my SIL's 'baby' and can't do a thing wrong, so it's better to be safe.

I don't remember what I was like with dogs as a kid. I know I wasn't scared of them, but I wonder if I ran at them like a lot of tots today do. I probably did :P

A neighbour that lived opposite had three dogs that I grew up around, and I *loved* them! She had a Great Dane, a Terrier cross and a rescue what I now think was a Springer cross Collie! I went on holiday with her when I was 9 / 10 and she took me to see her friends' two Bull Mastiff; they were beautiful and the size of me

(oops, way off topic )

Has it always been like that or did Caitlyn inadvertently do something to scare the Springer? Your SIL could work with her Springer and Caitlyn, it's the same way you work with any dog phobia (although dog should be muzzled 'cos it's around a child). You counter condition them by giving them really tasty treats (or playing with them, whatever is highest on their love list!) whilst the scary thing is far enough away not to bother them too much. Then you slowly bring the thing closer. I guess it's harder to work with a dog and a child, seeing as kids can be unpredictable! If done right the process should take at least a month, the worst thing you can do is rush it.

So, it'd be the same with a muzzle. You click and reward for the dog looking / being near the muzzle. For touching the muzzle (you can teach the command 'touch', we did this with the harness and Kasper when he hated it!) click and reward, for putting his nose in it, for allowing it to be held on his nose for 1 second, longer, longer, fastened etc. It's a delicate process but if you have the time and the patience you can make it work

Okay, I gotta go...some furry pillock is whining to go out, and I don't mean Lyle

That will be why then...for a dog that's never been socialised with young children and seen them as being safe and fun, just the child's noise and movement can scare them...especially when the child comes into his territory. It's always sad in these cases because it's so easy to think 'oh what a horrible dog growling at a child', but it's usually because of poor socialisation, abuse or a bad experience.

In our case we've had the few people that Kasper barked / growled at look at us oddly and assume we have a horrible dog. My Uncle yelled at him "Don't you bloody growl at me!" Oh yeah, good one, that's just what Kasper needed It's not Kasper's fault, dog's always have a reason for acting afraid, they're not doing it to be nasty.
I like this thread too

Anyone have an idea for a new topic??

Eh, a lot of things can play a part in the way a dog reacts to something new...early socialisation plays a massive part, but the personality of the dog does too...submissive dogs are naturally going to be aggressive faster than more confident dog, as they'll be more afraid.

It also depends on the age of the dog when they first meet the new 'thing', as dogs have fear periods right up until they are around 2 years old...for example the other day Kasper noticed this small white pot (like a very small plant pot) balanced on a garden wall in a garden that we walk past pretty much every day. He was terrified of this pot when he first saw it, and now gives it a wide berth and fearful looks. We must be going through a slight fear period and it spooked him. That's adolescent dogs for ya

Anyone got a new topic idea? I can do another if not...

Nope they can be about anything Shobhna, go for it!

I tend to do animal related ones because that's mostly all I'm in interested in hehe!

I see nothing wrong with streaming of abilities; there's nothing worse than being out of your depth with geniuses or being frustratingly held up by slower learners. I was bottom of the bottom maths division, but preferred being there than being tutted at by boffins who could do things in their head I couldn't do on paper!

Sorry for the wall of text, that was quite an essay!

my next door has two dislexic sons. Now adults they say how at school they would play the goon and disrupt class to appear "funny" and able to manpulate the teacher, so avoid being teased as "thick".

The teachers are not allowed to put negative statements on the end of term reports, so parents read a report that hides the fact that their child is really failing in it's education.

My son's teachers always told me he was 'just lazy' and was 'perfectly able if he'd only put his mind to it'. He told me all the time that he was dyslexic, but his teachers denied it. Lazy was their version. Then when he left school and did a college course the tutor identified him as dyslexic in their first lesson and gave him the help he needed. If only the school had done that he might've come out of there with some qualifications because they were right, he was perfectly able, if only they'd put THEIR minds to it and looked past the end of their noses.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one! My first thought was "no way, how wrong!" but then when I thought about it a pedigree dog will attract a lot more attention and be more desirable, so therefore can bring in more money for the centre which will go towards helping to care for the other dogs. After all, if you can get a cross or a pedigree for the same price, which are people likely to go for?! Which would mean the cross breeds being overlooked purely on breed. It would also deter people adopting a pedigree for £120 and then selling it on for a big profit to anyone willing to pay - at least the RSPCA do home visits and vet potential owners which a profiteer wouldn't.

Just had a quick look - seems Dogs Trust have a set fee which makes me think the RSPCA are wrong and just profiteering. Dogs Trust have a no kill policy, a robust home visit system (I assume) and are also a charity. If potential owners are assessed properly then selling on shouldn't be an issue.

I don't think any rehomed animal should be sold as a pedigree - no papers, no value in selling on and taken in for the love of the animal only. They should be sold as a 'type', e.g. german shepherd-type dog.

I always thought cross breeds were "mistakes" and not intentional.

I remember my Uncle's Scottie fathering to his Alsation. Now they were very, very cute but a mistake! And rather mind boggling... and loads of them!

The cross-bred dogs (or mongrels as we used to call them) were always healthier and hardier than their pure-bred cousins. I don't understand why people will pay so much money just because the cross is from two pure-bred dogs.

I assume each branch of the RSPCA has leeway to do whatever they like then. I would've assumed that RSPCA policy would dictate charges etc - they seem to run them more like a franchise!

I must admit I changed my view after writing my post and had to edit it! I read what I'd written and thought "what a load of tosh"!

Okay, another discussion!

So, on the via duct we walk on (which cost loads to renovate and is supposed to be this big special thing for cyclists, walkers, families with kids, horse riders and dog walkers to use) there are signs to pick up your dog's poo every few feet, because obviously kids play on there.

But at the same time, every six feet or so (not exact but very regularly) there are huge mountains of horse poo. And obviously horse riders are allowed to leave it there (legally I think it's to do with the diet [not eating meat] whereas realistically it'd be an inconvenience for them to get off the horse to pick it up) but, at the end of the day, it is poo...! We walked past a dollop of it the other day that, if I'd have stood in it, would reach halfway up my wellie!!

I get that dog poo isn't pleasant to stand in...but neither is horse poo! And whereas dog poo is much smaller and dogs naturally prefer to poo at the side and in grass, horses do it anywhere and everywhere! I don't mind the horse poo being there, I just find it hypocritical that they take such a stand against dog poo and plaster signs everywhere...

Does society just see dog poo as being 'icky' and irresponsible, whereas horse poo has become 'rural' and acceptable? What is there stopping dog owners from thinking they don't have to clean up after their dogs' if riders don't have to clean up after their horses? (apart from hundreds of signs )

I have a hilarious image of people carrying a platic bag and pooper scooper when they go riding and collectibng the poo along the way.
Now there's a job for someone, poo collector

Dedicated gardeners nick the horse poo as soon as they can anyway - I've seen people nipping out with buckets and shovels after a horse has...passed!
Dog poo is vile, seething with toxoplasmosis, and jumps up and rubs itself in childrens' eyes. According to hyterical Hovis-style mothers and health and safety people anyway. I don't see much difference either, Red. I think you'll find it boils down to the fact that rich people own horses and rich people seem to make the laws in this country...

Maybe people would think it was an animal on the path at night - some of the dollops I've seen are so big they could be mistaken for everything from a hedgehog to a great dane!!! I know they are bigger animals and therefore bigger poo, but there are a lot less horses around than dogs, except on your viaduct it seems!

While we're on the subject, whatever happened to white dog poo?

I remember the white dog poo.
This an answer from Google:-

White dog poop is the calcium left behind as the water evaporates, and the 'organic' components of the poop are consumed (in various ways) leaving the inorganic stuff behind.

But nowadays dogs don't eat as much bone as they used to, including bone meal. Also, tighter regulation on dogs crapping on pavements means that turds don't hang around for years in public places like they used to, giving them less opportunity to dry out and turn white.


If Casper eats other dog's poo then his diet wont be pure veggie?


There are lots of horses round my village and I get plety of heaps along my road. A bit smelly in the hot weather but that's the smell of the country !!!

So does that mean dog food is better quality now Ollie? Yes Red, it was literally white and you'd see it pretty often. It didn't come out of the dog that colour!

Sadly that's true of lots of food stuffs Ollie. I thought by now there would be a real 'kick' against additives and preservatives and we'd be looking at much healthier ready-meals (which in effect is what we give to our pets!) If a company like Innocent can do it why can't the others? (I suppose the answer is one word - profit).

I thought at one time pet food had to be fit for human consumption (not that we'd want to eat it!) but it seems it isn't anymore.

What brand do you feed Kasper? I used to buy dog kibble for the rats, but can't remember the brand now. It was difficult to find I remember that, but a small bag lasted them half a lifetime, literally.

I have a new discussion subject...it came up as on another forum someone was asking if Pit Bulls are legal in the UK. Short answer no, they're a banned breed (which is an entirely different argument...)

So, this is how it currently works. If you have owned a pit bull before the ban, it has to be registered, neutered, muzzled and walked on lead in public...pretty ridiculous, I know. But you can keep it.

However, any dog that looks "of type" (meaning any dog that has any distinguishing looks / characteristics of a pit bull or other banned breed) can be seized without warning, and with no need of a complaint being made, by the police or dog warden. Not only is this ridiculous, but if you have proof that your dog is not any part pit bull, say you have proof mum is a Staffy and dad is a Lab for example, the police can still seize it as a dog 'of type; it can go to court, the dog can be PTS and you can end up with a criminal record!

Isn't that ridiculous?! The directgov website ( http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/InYourHome/AnimalsAndPets/Dogs/DG_180098) has some interesting bits to quote:

"If your dog matches many of the characteristics of a Pit Bull Terrier, it may be a banned type. This is because dogs with these characteristics are more likely than other dogs to cause severe harm if they attack.
It won’t matter what type or breed a dog’s parents were. (Cross-bred and mongrel dogs can have the characteristics of a Pit Bull Terrier.)"

"Some kinds of American Bulldogs have been found to be Pit Bull types."

Could there be a worse way of doing this?!

Someone I vaguely know, their parents' labrador got taken as a type dog! He's a pure lab, just a bit bigger and blockier than most, and he got taken!! There was uproar, and they got him back soon enough...of course they did, he was a Lab and everybody's always on the Lab's side!

Funny you should say that, the most dog's Kasper has been attacked by are Labs and Lab crosses...and it's not because we see more of them, when we used to live in Stoke all we saw were Staffies...oh wow the rats are climbing all over me, the keyboard and mouse and making this very hard to type out!

The other forum I'm on, somebody on there is a vet nurse, and she's already seen a case of a dog come in with a wound from 'walking into a sharp fence.' The vet recognised the dog as belonging to different owners, realised it had been stolen, and contacted the police...turned out the dog had indeed been stolen and they had cut out the microchip

Yes, I also liked (okay, wrong word...) that these seized dogs would be looked at by the police, who would determine whether or not they're 'type' dogs...what do the police know about dogs and dog breeds?!

We had a Staffy that used to live next door to us before I even knew what a Staffy was...she too was an absolute cuddle monster!

We don't see hardly any Staffies where we live now. Isn't it funny how certain dogs, you just don't see them some places? I know two people in the village that have Staffies...we mainly see Labs, JRTs, and toy dogs such as pugs, bichon frise...where Lyle's parents live it's very anti-staffy. The Staffies stay in rescue for years there, and my next dog *has* to have Staffy in it just so I can prove Lyle's parents misconceptions wrong...

The dog walker we see sometimes walking towards the woods (she's really not very good) walks this absolutely gorgeous Staffy who is so excited to say hello to Kasper and us, but because of the breed the dog walker yanks it as far back as she can. She had a 3-ish month old Staffy pup last time and did the same with that ...as a result me and Lyle try extra hard to make sure the Staffies get to say hi to Kasper!

Yeah, we saw quite a few Staffies the last place we lived, same with Rottie's...all really badly trained, 3/4 were dog aggressive and every owner we saw yelling, yanking or hitting their dog...

Dog owners should *have* to take their dogs / puppies to positive reinforcement training classes and puppy socialising classes. It should be a legal requirement.

When my Aunt and Uncle adopted Chip, the RSPCA made them sign a contract to take him to puppy classes and they did. He was, surprisingly, very well trained as a youngster...unfortunately they didn't keep up with it!

Oh we've seen some dreadful trainers, but none of them have been PR trainers. I think there's a really good website that lists all the good positive reinforcement trainers and qualified behaviourists somewhere...

Hmm, that's true. Unless it was just with puppies...I know most rescues offer free training and meetings with their behaviourist with any dog adopted from them, but then that cuts into the rescue's funds.

Vince was taken to puppy training, and he is not very pleasant now either. I don't understand the people who bother to take their dogs to puppy school, but then don't keep up with training...you can't expect a puppy to remember all the lessons and socialisation it learned, that's like not expecting a 5 year old to need more schooling! When our dog hits two he can be considered to not need anymore socialisation, but we'll always be giving him it.

Then there's my friend who's dog didn't need any training at all because it was such an intelligent breed...wow yeah, that turned out well!

Another school topic -
Schools have disruptive pupils in every class as they are not now allowed to be segregated into separate classes.
In "The old days" these children would not be there. They would be playing truant. Compulsory attendance at school seems to have messed up education big time for the other pupils.

And the league tables are fiddled - schools only put kids in for exams if they know they're going to pass, thereby having a large % pass rate.

I assume your granddaughter will have a teacher hovering nearby at all times. If the school was that good it wouldn't need to tell her what to say. As for disruptive pupils, I don't know what is the answer. It is a shame for the rest of the class that want to learn to be distracted by such a pupil, and easily led kids will be dragged down by them. But put them all together or exclude them from school and you have big resources thrown at them at the detriment of the 'good' kids. When I was at school we had disruptive pupils but the teachers controlled the class and didn't take any crap from them. They don't seem to be as strong now, probably down to bodies like OFSTED preventing them punishing those kids.

When I was at school if a teacher held a kid by the throat and you went home and told your parents, they'd punish you again as you obviously did something wrong to make the teacher react that way. Nowadays the kids bring their parents in who threaten the teacher, go to a lawyer/newspaper/tv, and kids realise that teachers have no power at all and they can do whatever they like without consequences.

Our Chemistry teacher used to administer the cane on behalf of the Headmaster. He would always do that when he was teaching a class. Said child would be taken into the side room (that had no door), would be told why they were being punished, what that punishment would be (i.e. number of 'hits') and then sent back to class. Only the real hard/bad kids ever got the cane, the rest of us were too scared so behaved. It was a rarely used deterrent but it was very effective. My brother was badly behaved at school and was caned twice. He said he deserved them both. He's still alive, sane, sensible and respectful. Same can't be said for some of today's yobs.

I know it's not very PC to say this, and I'm in no way comparing it to the schooling of the 80's previously mentioned!, but I think there is a place for a parent to use a smack as a last resort. Not as an 'anger' thing, but as a bringing a child to its senses short sharp shock. And I don't mean beating, punching, or bruising either. One quick tap can stop a tantrum, give a warning (I would rather smack a child's hand if they're constantly trying to put it in a plug socket than let them try it out). I have seen too many non-smacking parents with the most awfully behaved kids. They probably don't think their child is badly behaved, but just ask the people around and they'll have a different view! My mom never smacked me, but by God she had a terrible tongue and I was terrified of her. By the way, despite admitting that yes, I did smack my kids (rarely, honest!) when they were young, I would never do the same to anyone else's kids, including my grandkids. It's not my place to discipline them.

I also don't believe that bad behaviour is the domain of the underprivileged. So called 'posh' kids are often worse, and the more affluent are more likely to dabble in alcohol and drugs. There is no one method that suits everyone - we all have to find out own way of making things work.

If I ever hit any child of mine, I wouldn't be happy with myself...same if I hit Kasper. I saw some wonderful parenting at the supermarket yesterday...the mum was paying for shopping on a self-serve machine, and had her young 3-ish year old daughter attached to her by one of those leads that fasten around the wrist.

The kid was bored and trying to look at the machine, she wasn't touching, just looking. Whilst the mum was paying, she screamed "Megan!" and yanked the childs' arm 8 times, that me and Lyle counted. Imagine being that kid and that's all you hear?! You don't get told what you're doing wrong, what you should be doing, you don't get provided with a toy so you have the chance to behave...you just get yelled at and ignored.

By the end of it the kid was sat on the floor crying and screaming that her hand hurt, because the lead had tightened and her poor hand was bright red! Mum didn't listen or notice, bagged the shopping and dragged the screaming girl horizontally out of the shop!

I think Kasper has taught me a lot in regards to parenting as well as dog ownership...that sounds awful haha but I understand rewarding good behaviour and distracting the bad so much better now. I think having such a sensitive and 'difficult' dog has prepared me a little for parenting.

Working with an animal that doesn't understand English or right from wrong also means I have to have LOTS of patience and try be creative with showing him what I want too! But because he's a dog there's the bonus of putting him in his crate if he's too much

I have a discussion topic...there are several rescues here in the UK that rehome dogs from other countries. Countries that are way overpopulated with dogs, where packs roam the streets, being physically abused by locals, are constantly starving, and if the dog catchers get them they will be treated despicably and killed.

Now, is it right that these rescues are bringing dogs into the UK, and taking homes that would otherwise be available for the thousands of dogs needing homes already in the UK? We already have far too many dogs in rescues, why add more to the mix instead of trying harder to find them homes?

Nobody can argue that it isn't amazing and noble work they are doing, saving dogs' lives...but at the same time, shouldn't we be trying to help the dogs here first...?

I was thinking that these dogs are asylum seekers. If we can help, we should, but not at the expense of dogs already waiting for homes. Perhaps they should pay to help people who want to bring strays home from holidays?

I'm really not sure where I stand on this (thanks for the replies too!) My thoughts are:

~ If the dogs weren't rehomed in the UK they would be left to starve, be tortured and killed in their original country

~ but at the same time they're taking up homes that dogs already here could be put into...I think I find it particularly hard to accept because of the thousands of Staffies being PTS in dog pounds or left to rot in rescues...

Tennessee at Animal Care has finally got a home. He had been there for four years, and he was almost 11 when he left (I think)...imagine if his owner had adopted a dog from another country? Nobody would have been interested him, the likelihood is he would have died alone in rescue.

Kate, I don't have any figures. All I know is that there are rescues who work only for rehoming dogs that are in rescue abroad. One rehomes them from Romania where a small, understaffed rescue manages to save the dogs from the dog catchers, who would kill them for profit. Once the dogs have a home here, they're shipped over to meet their new family.

The other issue I have is that all the dogs I've seen listed have all been described as loving, sociable, and good with other dogs and strangers. How do they know this is true?! It also says that the dogs at the rescue are never walked or given attention, due to not having enough staff, so how can they assess the dogs thoroughly? If someone says they'll have a dog, the rescue brings them to the UK and finds them to be dog aggressive...then what? They join all 'our' dogs in rescue in the UK...?

Posted By: chief chickenIf we can help, we should, but not at the expense of dogs already waiting for homes. Perhaps they should pay to help people who want to bring strays home from holidays?

That's a very good way of phrasing it, and exactly what I meant! And that's a good idea too, I've read several 'happily ever after' stories where people have been on holiday, fallen in love with a stray dog, and brought him / her over to the UK after months of arguing and spending money...

Posted By: KatebI thought of this thread today when I saw an advert on TV for a Donkey rescue. They bring donkeys over from overseas to live in a sanctuary. They may be rehomed, but that is not the priority. Is that on a par do we think?cruelty.

Hmm. That seems different because it's donkeys (I'm uneducated with donkeys, I don't know how many need 'rehoming' or how many rescues there are) and their priority isn't to rehome them...surely there can't be as many donkeys in rescue and in need of rehoming (or as many people willing to rehome then) as dogs...?

Funnily enough my mum always wanted me to have a donkey rescue

The sad thing is that no matter how many dogs we remove from a country like that,they will just be replaced by hundreds more. It is now embedded in their culture that dogs are worthless and can be discarded at will.

Not compared to other nations...

...and women who apparently kept 2 rabbits in a hutch not big enough for 2 guinea pigs..
I think on the whole we can be proud of our record of animal welfare. There will always be aberrations, and that's a terrible thing, but we were the first nation to have a society for animal welfare at all and most people are compassionate and kind.