"If you are in debt you should put your pets to sleep"

undaunted

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Sorry I don't agree with this. They are family members yes, but really would you grieve if your pet died as much as you would if your brother/sister/parent/child died? I know I wouldn't. In fact I cried for a few days when my cat died. I'm sure I would have grieved deeper and longer had it been my son.

I have some friends who had three dogs who they love dearly, a couple of weeks ago the old one died and they were upset and mournrd for him but in the end,even they said 'well it's a dog,, it's not a person', and whilst missing him, continued to get on with their lives. I'm sure you wouldn't do that if it were a person.

And what are you supposed to do if you fall on hard times and can't afford to look after your pet properly, can't rehome it and can't feed your kids?

I'm not saying it's a decision that should be taken lightly, and in fact every other way should be explored first, but in some cases having the animal euthanased may be the only option left.

I don't have a dog myself,(although I have done in the past) but have always had cats and since the beginning of this year have been a professional pet sitter, so am an animal lover.

Some people do! As to your own attitude I suggest you don't share it with your clients as based on what you've posted I certainly wouldn't let you look after my animals!

calicocat

Better_Off_1983 wrote: »

This is what a colleague said!!

She has proclaimed that she hates animals and has no shame in saying this.

I work in finance, we were training a week ago and we all went out to 'shadow' and listen to other live calls with real customers/debtors. We all had to come back into the training room to talk about what we each heard on the calls. I advised that I listened to a call where SOA was ran through, a woman had two pets and out of work. One of the dogs needed medication that cost for about £28.00 per fortnight.

She shouted out in the training room "It only takes one needle!!" :eek::eek::eek:

I am still shocked by this comment!

Someone else said that they do not understand why people keep getting pregnant knowing full well they are in debt, then the animal hater piped up saying "Accidents happen" (she is a single mother herself) imagine if something was said that was tasteless and lacked tact?

What do you think?

I think she is vile........and proves the point that most animals are a lot nicer than most humans.

seven-day-weekend

undaunted wrote: »

Some people do! As to your own attitude I suggest you don't share it with your clients as based on what you've posted I certainly wouldn't let you look after my animals!

Because I am an animal lover, I would rather have the pet euthanased than not fed properly or not taken to the vet when necessary if the person couldn't afford it. I stress that this would be an absolutely last resort when there was no other option and it would not be done lightly.

My approach to my clients and their animals is professional and I look after their animals as they wish me to. I have NEVER had any complaints and in fact get asked by the same people every time they require a pet-sitting service. (We were doing the job privately before we joined the agency).

If you don't want me to look after your animals, that's fine, plenty of people do.

pawsies

coinxoperated wrote: »

Surely if your were a responsible pet owner, you would take out pet insurance that could help cover costs if your pet did have an illness. I find it totally unacceptable that people have pets they can not afford. I moved into my own flat with my small dog. I only got a small dog in the first place because they cost less to feed. He has an easy coat, So doesn't need salon visits, and had a healthy mother and father. I also knew, by being so small, he would fit in with my lifestyle however it changed. There was a time where all I could afford was plain bags of pasta - but I still kept up the £12 a month pet insurance and proper dog food (although budget from asda!).

I'm so fed up of people making quick decisions to get pets and not thinking of the long term commitment you have to make. If I go, he goes! If I can't afford to eat, I would make sure he did. I know why, he doesn't. I chose him, he didn't ask to be with me.

In regards to the comment from the lady at the call centre, she needs to be shot.

Don't even get me started on people who have children without planning how they will provide for them without sponging off the government!

You aren't taking into consideration people who have changes in circumstances or children who inherit family pets as they get older. Tomorrow you could lose your job, doesn't make you irresponsible or whatever because you couldn't see it happening.

undaunted

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Because I am an animal lover, I would rather have the pet euthanased than not fed properly or not taken to the vet when necessary if the person couldn't afford it.

I can only say that if it came to it some animal lovers would ensure that they fed their pet before they fed themselves (as the above poster also sees to say).

Failing that rehoming is surely a better option than euthanasia and if a person is in that much difficulty there are the likes of PDSA, Blue Cross hospitals, Tailwaggers Trust etc. Nobody advocated that a pet went without food or medical treatment!

seven-day-weekend

undaunted wrote: »

I can only say that if it came to it some animal lovers would ensure that they fed their pet before they fed themselves (as the above poster also sees to say).

Failing that rehoming is surely a better option than euthanasia and if a person is in that much difficulty there are the likes of PDSA, Blue Cross hospitals, Tailwaggers Trust etc. Nobody advocated that a pet went without food or medical treatment!

Certainly it is, and I only said that euthanasia might be the only option left once everything else has been tried, and that included re-homing. There might be pets that no-one wants to adopt (maybe due to age/medical issues etc). Surely then, the kindest option would be to have them put down, rather than spend the remainder of their life in kennels?

People seem to think I'm looking upon it as the first option, not the last!

undaunted

To an extent I can see where you are coming from. Personally though I believe there is a home out there for every animal. Some are harder to home than others of course but there are those people out there who wish to help the "under dogs" & there have been animals who've spent years in kennels but did eventually find a loving home

Person_one

undaunted wrote: »

To an extent I can see where you are coming from. Personally though I believe there is a home out there for every animal.

There are thousands destroyed every year because this just isn't true.

undaunted

Person_one wrote: »

There are thousands destroyed every year because this just isn't true.

Animals are destroyed every year yes - but it's more likely to be because someone isn't willing to wait for them to be found a home, not because there isn't a home out there at all.