Pets when someone dies

aardvaak

I have recently seen lots of sickening videos on YouTube of pets abandoned on the streets by relatives of a deceased person only interested in their assets and not their pets.

May I urge everyone to make proper provisions in their wills (particularly if someone lives alone) of what should happen (where to go etc.,) of their pets after they pass away, and not just rely on that but to leave notices around the house stating this because if authorities come into the house when the person leaves (dies or goes into care) they would not have access to the will straight away and would do what ever their knee-jerk reaction might be in the spur of the moment without thinking of animal welfare.

I would not leave anything to someone who I might think would just abandon a pet in this way.

Silver_Shark

If you become seriously ill or pass away, Dogs Trust will look after your canine companion, help them get back on their paws, and find them a home.

https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/help-advice/dog-care/canine-care-card

[Deleted User]

Registering the pet with the Cinnamon Trust is a good idea The Cinnamon Trust – The National Charity for the elderly, the terminally ill and their pets  

I suggest them often.

aardvaak

Thank you for your comments You do have to register with them and put in the will and put notices around the house otherwise the authorities will take them and end and in a pound on a knee jerk action the owner's views must be obeyed.

DB1904

aardvaak said:

Thank you for your comments You do have to register with them and put in the will and put notices around the house otherwise the authorities will take them and end and in a pound on a knee jerk action the owner's views must be obeyed.

If someone dies at home it's not for the likes of the police to carry out the wishes of their will. It's not a knee jerk action putting an animal into a pound, dealing with the animal is down to the executor(s).

GDB2222

Davesnave said:

canaldumidi said:

Surely in these days of shortages, food delivery problems, and environmental concerns we should be looking at alternatives for unwanted animals?

In some parts of the world there is no irrational aversion to eating dogs etc.

And as for valuing them above humans, as demonstrated by the evacuation of 150 pets from afghanistan when at-risk interpreters were abandoned, the mind boggles....

As I see the future playing out, governments internationally may not have much time for emotion and sentiment. We already have a government in Australia, a supposedly civilised nation,  threatening it's citizens with loss of work and any kind of personal security if they fail to do as they're told

ALL governments will remove your personal liberty if you fail to do as you are told. For example, as an individualist, I think it would be a fine thing to drive on the right hand side of the road in this country. Obviously, that would cause mayhem, and I'd be locked up if I tried. 

How about Typhoid Mary? She was incarcerated, even though she did nothing wrong at all. 

"Mary Mallon, also known as Typhoid Mary, was an Irish-born cook believed to have infected 53 people with typhoid fever, three of whom died, and the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the disease pathogen, Salmonella typhi."

She was imprisoned on North Brother Island for over a third of her life. On the other hand, if you had been in charge, what would you have done?  This was 100 years ago, by the way, so nothing new. 

Davesnave

GDB2222 said:

Davesnave said:

canaldumidi said:

Surely in these days of shortages, food delivery problems, and environmental concerns we should be looking at alternatives for unwanted animals?

In some parts of the world there is no irrational aversion to eating dogs etc.

And as for valuing them above humans, as demonstrated by the evacuation of 150 pets from afghanistan when at-risk interpreters were abandoned, the mind boggles....

As I see the future playing out, governments internationally may not have much time for emotion and sentiment. We already have a government in Australia, a supposedly civilised nation,  threatening it's citizens with loss of work and any kind of personal security if they fail to do as they're told

ALL governments will remove your personal liberty if you fail to do as you are told. For example, as an individualist, I think it would be a fine thing to drive on the right hand side of the road in this country. Obviously, that would cause mayhem, and I'd be locked up if I tried. 

How about Typhoid Mary? She was incarcerated, even though she did nothing wrong at all.

Good argument. However, that was a very long time ago when people thought differently about many things. The case against Mary as a public danger was far more sound than that of the regional Aussie governments against a certain large group of people they legislate for. I also think a good case could be made that their proposed actions will prove illegal, but that's another can of worms.

aardvaak

Davesnave said:

canaldumidi said:

Surely in these days of shortages, food delivery problems, and environmental concerns we should be looking at alternatives for unwanted animals?

In some parts of the world there is no irrational aversion to eating dogs etc.

And as for valuing them above humans, as demonstrated by the evacuation of 150 pets from afghanistan when at-risk interpreters were abandoned, the mind boggles....

I think the Afghanistan airlift of animals was privately arranged, but you've made an excellent point there that human emotion often overrides good sense and morality.

As I see the future playing out, governments internationally may not have much time for emotion and sentiment. We already have a government in Australia, a supposedly civilised nation,  threatening it's citizens with loss of work and any kind of personal security if they fail to do as they're told, so what chance would a dog have?

Anyone who lives alongside the horsey brigade probably knows how much money it already costs the owners to meet the animals' finicky needs, how much useful land they occupy and the quantity of feed that must be used to sustain them in winter. And what do they do? Well, those next door to me fart a lot and occasionally the owner trots a mile or two down the road on one. The other one's just 'company.' I can see animals like that becoming an easy Thunberg target.

To return to the OP's post, whether it's a horse or a hamster, some (maybe most?) families won't do as you suggest. For example, younger members of my family have already decided among themselves who will be responsible for looking after whom in the event of certain older members' demise. However, where an older person is left unsupported and alone by their family, it's something to consider seriously, as in that instance the value of a pet in sustaining mental health can make them an asset rather than simply a liability.

Davesnave - Your family do seem to be ready to honour their duties

elsien

None of my family would want Gitdog, other than parent who is far more likely to predecease me. I’d be looking for a bull terrier charity to find someone willing to take on an ageing idiot dog - there’s not going to be a huge queue. Tbh, I’d prefer he was put to sleep rather than stay in kennels for any length of time. Bullies aren’t cut out for kennel life at the best of times. 

aardvaak

DB1904 said:

aardvaak said:

Thank you for your comments You do have to register with them and put in the will and put notices around the house otherwise the authorities will take them and end and in a pound on a knee jerk action the owner's views must be obeyed.

If someone dies at home it's not for the likes of the police to carry out the wishes of their will. It's not a knee jerk action putting an animal into a pound, dealing with the animal is down to the executor(s).

But the executor although might be very quick to start their process might not be there at the point of death or going to care, when the authorities police, ambulance etc., arrive would make knee-jerk decision allegally for the pets good or not so the pet might get dumped or put in a pound just to rid them of the property - if notices were placed around they would know (I hope) to leave alone or what to do. 

DB1904

aardvaak said:

DB1904 said:

aardvaak said:

Thank you for your comments You do have to register with them and put in the will and put notices around the house otherwise the authorities will take them and end and in a pound on a knee jerk action the owner's views must be obeyed.

If someone dies at home it's not for the likes of the police to carry out the wishes of their will. It's not a knee jerk action putting an animal into a pound, dealing with the animal is down to the executor(s).

But the executor although might be very quick to start their process might not be there at the point of death or going to care, when the authorities police, ambulance etc., arrive would make knee-jerk decision allegally for the pets good or not so the pet might get dumped or put in a pound just to rid them of the property - if notices were placed around they would know (I hope) to leave alone or what to do. 

Exactly and that's why the animal should goi into a pound. It's not the job of the emergency services to babysit pets.