Abandoned!

MissMoneypenny

mech wrote: »

The problem is that people keep these pointless animals in the first place, not that they abandon them.

Dogs & Cats
They are company for old and disabled people.
They teach children how to look after something.
They lower the blood pressure.
They teach children to become caring individuals.

Dogs
They locate bombs.
They locate missing people.
They track offenders.
They locate evidence.
The move aggressive crowds.
They locate dead bodies.
They locate drugs.
They guard forces bases.
They protect our borders
They protect their forces handler while they are carrying out their duties.
They take the hit for their police handler.
They bring down and hold fleeing criminals.
They go into hospitals, hospices, old peoples homes to brighten the residents day.
They can stop their house from being burgled.
They can protect females from sex offenders while out walking.
They can protect children being snatched.

I never trust people who think that dogs should not be kept. I always wonder why they don't want children and females to be protected when they are out.

lostinrates

mech wrote: »

In most cases (cats and dogs) they're perfectly capable of looking after themselves. No they don't really have a place in the ecosystem, but they didn't when they were still pets either. Cats and dogs running wild is more of a problem for local wildlife and human society than it is for the animals themselves. The problem is that people keep these pointless animals in the first place, not that they abandon them. Animal sanctuaries just compound the problem, encouraging pet ownership and so the problem continues.

Well....I think a lot depends on the breed of cat or dog. Two of my ogs would survive, and my cats probably would, but my other dog? Nah, and a lot of others would either.

I am by taining an equine scientist, with a real interest in ethics and welfare as well as an animal lover and commited owner - so I have a sort of extra interest in the US horse cases;).

I disagree with Cheese cat in as much as giving up your pets sometimes IS kinder and more loving and responsible. It is the hardest choice for loving owners though, and no doubt extraorinarily hard for our animals. There are times when we have to realise we are not best placed to be owners (eg while I was sufering from very serious ill health my equines were rehomed, I now have one back) and there are even times when I personally would opt for euthanasia.

This is obviously an issue close to the hearts of many and I often debate with other animal professionals about 'animal loving Britain'.

I really don't want to upset any other really loving owners out there, but I really think people should be thinking very carefully about buying/rehoming pets at this time, and certainly prudent breeders should be making very prudent decisions before breeding and domestic species right now more than ever IMHO.

scorpio_princess

mech wrote: »

In most cases (cats and dogs) they're perfectly capable of looking after themselves. No they don't really have a place in the ecosystem, but they didn't when they were still pets either. Cats and dogs running wild is more of a problem for local wildlife and human society than it is for the animals themselves. The problem is that people keep these pointless animals in the first place, not that they abandon them. Animal sanctuaries just compound the problem, encouraging pet ownership and so the problem continues.

Are you for real?? Pets are not 'pointless' - they give people an enormous amount of pleasure, not to mention companionship. Would you say that reading a novel, or looking at a nice piece of art, or going on holiday was pointless? People derive pleasure from all these things - is that not allowed? Just because some heartless and idiotic people decide to throw their pets out with the trash, doesn't make them pointless.

As for your comment about animal sanctuaries, what do you suggest they do? Anihilate all the animals in their care in order to discourage pet ownership? Pppffffttt - your argument is fatally flawed.

SquatNow

mech wrote: »

Oops, accidentally recommended your stupid post. No I don't see how that's a problem for the animals. Your sarcasm fails.

Cats roam fairly feral anyway. They just like to have somewhere to go for free food.

Virtually anyone whos had a cat for any length of time will have experienced wandering cat syndrome... where they bog off for 3 weeks leaving you worried sick then turn up looking fine wondering what all the fuss is about.

Bf109

mech wrote: »

Oops, accidentally recommended your stupid post. No I don't see how that's a problem for the animals. Your sarcasm fails.

Cats roam fairly feral anyway. They just like to have somewhere to go for free food.

My god, what a perfect illustration of the sorry state of our education system

Alright, let give you some pointers:

1. Wild animals breed
2. Wild animals carry diseases
3. Cats and dogs are carnivores

As any fule kno.....

Now if you cant figure out the problem from those three hints, then I suggest you go back to school and try paying attention this time instead of sticking pencils up your nose and flicking spit balls at Plectrum. Whose knows! you might even manage to score a couple of them GCSEs this time! Fancy That!

CheeseCat

SquatNow wrote: »

Virtually anyone whos had a cat for any length of time will have experienced wandering cat syndrome... where they bog off for 3 weeks leaving you worried sick then turn up looking fine wondering what all the fuss is about.

Neutered/Spayed cats are much less likely to wander off. Not that I am saying you didn't spay/neuter but just a fact.

I know i'm not an expert, just a crazy cat woman

mech_2

Bf109 wrote: »

My god, what a perfect illustration of the sorry state of our education system

That's rich coming from someone who can barely string a sentence together.

Alright, let give you some pointers:

1. Wild animals breed
2. Wild animals carry diseases
3. Cats and dogs are carnivores

As any fule kno.....

Now if you cant figure out the problem from those three hints, then I suggest you go back to school and try paying attention this time instead of sticking pencils up your nose and flicking spit balls at Plectrum. Whose knows! you might even manage to score a couple of them GCSEs this time! Fancy That!

No I can't figure out the problem. Reactionary logic wasn't in the syllabus when I was at school.

Unspayed animals breed whether they are wild or not. What is your point here? What diseases are you thinking of specifically? We don't have rabies in this country. They're far more likely to get fleas. I'm sure they can cope with that. Yes cats and dogs are carnivores and that's a nuisance. Cats will hunt whether you feed them at home or not, and stray dogs would rather eat garbage or carrion in my experience. Dirty horrible things.

mech_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Dogs & Cats
They are company for old and disabled people.
They teach children how to look after something.
They lower the blood pressure.
They teach children to become caring individuals.

OK, but I would suggest interaction with other humans is what is needed here. Otherwise it just seems a bit like shoving granny or the kids in front of the TV to get them out of the way.

Dogs
They locate bombs.
They locate missing people.
They track offenders.
They locate evidence.
The move aggressive crowds.
They locate dead bodies.
They locate drugs.
They guard forces bases.
They protect our borders
They protect their forces handler while they are carrying out their duties.
They take the hit for their police handler.
They bring down and hold fleeing criminals.
They go into hospitals, hospices, old peoples homes to brighten the residents day.

OK, but they are working dogs, not pets that are discarded on a whim. Unless there's a suggestion that the Police are abandoning dogs due to budget cuts?

They can stop their house from being burgled.
They can protect females from sex offenders while out walking.
They can protect children being snatched.

The best argument yet. Though if push comes to shove I wouldn't want to count on the dog actually being more than a deterrent. It seems a rather inconvenient way to achieve what can more properly be prevented with the application of common sense.

I never trust people who think that dogs should not be kept. I always wonder why they don't want children and females to be protected when they are out.

I'm sure there are better and cheaper cures for paranoia.

mech_2

scorpio_princess wrote: »

Are you for real?? Pets are not 'pointless' - they give people an enormous amount of pleasure, not to mention companionship. Would you say that reading a novel, or looking at a nice piece of art, or going on holiday was pointless? People derive pleasure from all these things - is that not allowed?

Pleasure does not override consequences. Yes, some holidays are pointless. Some people waste huge amounts of money and resources going halfway around the world just so they can inflate their egos when they tell everyone where they've been. I would imagine most pets are not massively happy in the domestic environment. Cats, unless they are strictly house-cats, will spend a lot of their time outside (covering my lawn with poo probably), but other animals don't really have a choice. Why else would the majority of them try to escape at the first opportunity?

Just because some heartless and idiotic people decide to throw their pets out with the trash, doesn't make them pointless.

Then why are there always more pets than there are owners?

As for your comment about animal sanctuaries, what do you suggest they do? Anihilate all the animals in their care in order to discourage pet ownership? Pppffffttt - your argument is fatally flawed.

You disagree with it. That doesn't make it flawed. When the RSPCA finds a new owner for a dog or cat, is the owner really taking on the pet because they wanted one? Or because they felt they were doing the right thing because the animal was already there? I'm sure the RSPCA takes their job seriously and won't give animals to people who will mistreat them, but the fact is that the sheer number of these pets is not environmentally sustainable and if they aren't wanted the world is probably better off without them. Yes, the same does go for us too.

Is an abandoned animal's life really so important to people? Personally I don't think it is or the majority of people wouldn't be eating animals every day. You're all just trying to take the moral high ground on this issue. I'm braver than that.

CheeseCat

mech wrote: »

I would imagine most pets are not massively happy in the domestic environment.

True that some animals like their outside time too, but many also love their owners and their homes - for instance, most dogs adore their owners and certainly wouldn't want to be out there on the streets! Some cats enjoy alot of outside time but again, wouldn't cope well on the streets with noone to care for them 24/7 and no human contact, vet care etc. One of my cats is terrified of the world outside (probably due to some bad experience in her life before we adopted her)

mech wrote: »

Then why are there always more pets than there are owners?

Because some "owners" (loose term) breed pets for money or do not spay/neuter and let their pet(s) out to get pregnant.

mech wrote: »

You disagree with it. That doesn't make it flawed.

You don't agree with pet ownership clearly, or think that its something worthwhile, that doesn't make people who do flawed! It also doesn't make animals 'dirty horrible things' and whatever else you've said on this thread

mech wrote: »

Is an abandoned animal's life really so important to people?

Some of us, yes. I certainly didn't adopt my cats because 'they were there' - I wanted to have some cats in my home and so I chose to adopt rather than get a kitten from an unscrupulous breeder and encourage the backyard breeders to bring more unwanted animals into the world.