Forum Home» Money Saving Polls

MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down? - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

edited 8 April 2010 at 8:22PM in Money Saving Polls
235 replies 31.8K views
2456724

Replies

  • What I mean is that she should probably put down her less favoured animals
  • Before people over-ran this planet with technology, nature cared for itself! Please think more about about caring for some of the more endangered creatures that are being destroyed by people as a consequence of their wanton destruction of their habitat. Just because an organism is cuddly does not mean that it is important in the greater scheme of things. In the UK, frogs, toads, newts, red squirrels, bats, hedgehogs, many bird species and other animals are far more important than a few commonplace pets; and they all survive in the countryside despite our "help", or more directly, in spite of man's collective ignorance. Where are the butterflies, moths and other insects that I used to wonder at in the '60s as a kid? Pesticides, monocultural agriculture, hedgerow destruction, herbicides, concrete, tarmac, deforestation (half of this is health and safety rubbish in urban areas) etc. have all played their part in the death of our rich and diverse plantlife and wildlife.

    Have the cuddly animals put to sleep -and do something useful instead - their ancestors might thank you for it --- after the human population has outgrown its time and polished itself off the planet.....
  • What I mean is that she should probably put down her less favoured animals

    Being a moneysaving website, the obvious solution is to take the pony and the goats to the abertoir, and have them turned into meat (horsemeat is a delicacy on the continent, tastes like roast beef) buy a big freezer and you will save a fortune on your meat bills. keep the dog, cat & gerbil, they can eat the same meat, saving you even more money on dog & cat food, plus walking the dog will keep you fit and healthy!:beer:
  • MORPH3USMORPH3US Users Awaiting Email Confirmation
    4.9K posts
    100% NO - she should rehome them if she can't look after them anymore.
  • :)Absolutely NOT !
    There is no way I could put down any animal unless of course it was suffering,and even then it would be reluctantly !
    Lots of folk have made recommendations for getting these animals free treatment if needed and also ideas for getting them rehomed..it would also be a good idea for the lady in question to keep 1 or more of them for companionship !
    put them down?
    NEVER!
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • If nobody else will take them and she runs the risk of loosing her house.... Yes of course she should!! especially if they are aging and need lots of medical treatment. at the end of the day they've probably had a good innings and it's quick anyway...... I've told the missus that when I get old. if I start drooling down the windows that that's what I want her to do to me!!
  • edited 7 April 2010 at 8:22AM
    kateheskkatehesk Forumite
    246 posts
    edited 7 April 2010 at 8:22AM
    If you are unemployed and on some form of benefits try the PDSA.

    To even pose this question I actually think is disgusting.

    An animal is not a disposable burden. It is a living creature. Would you dispose of your baby if you were struggling to manage?! (I know many people will feel that isn't a fair comparison, but to me it is - I tend not to differentiate between the value of a life, regardless of species).

    People need to realise when they take animals on that they have to be responsible for them, in any eventuality.
  • LilacPixieLilacPixie Forumite
    8.1K posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    NO there is always sancturies who wil help rehome or help with feed costs.
    MF aim 10th December 2020 :j:eek:
    MFW 2012 no86 OP 0/2000 :D
  • Animals are not disposable. They are living beings, and as the (supposedly) more superior species humans have a responsibility to look after them. And I mean all animals, not just the cuddly ones.

    Anne should do everything she can to look after her animals even if it means being cold and hungry. She should look to rehome as many as possible and try everywhere she can think of. The pony and goats must be pretty expensive, but more difficult to rehome. If it gets to the point where she is repossessed then some sort of local appeal might find some homes.
  • Have a word with the RSPCA who should be able to help her rehome her animals. She could also talk with the Cat Protection League and, I think, the Cinnamon Trust. There must be other voluntary organisations that could advice her on the dogs, horses and hamsters.

    I'd take the hamster myself, but I think the cats I foster would regard it as fast food :)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support