I caught that show last night at a friends house. They had one case where this idiot had 3 pups in his back yard. One was dead and the other 2 were actually feeding from it.

Why do these people have dogs?? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I don't get that show here - thank God. I do not agree with animals being classed as property, and that is not a popular view here, and I am ok with that.

DFrost - I love your posts and the work that you do! If you ever have a min drop me a line at info@gsrt.net<br />
I think the issue is not ACO officers being ignorant, or the police. I wish the cruelty laws had more "teeth". Here in Ontario, and most if not all of the US, it is still legal to shoot, gas, electrocute etc dogs as euthanasia - that is not acceptable to me - and some do this immediately after the mandatory 72 hour holding period - for all dogs - after 72 hours - BAM.

Laureen, I understand how emotional this issue can be, but Kevin has very, very, good points. You have to kind of step back and look at all angles.

There are many good arguments as to why euthanasia is horrible, but why is it so many pets wind up in shelters to begin with??? Because of ignorant people who are irresponsible PROPERTY OWNERS. They often discard animals as if they were trash. That should be( maybe it is?) illegal if you ask me, but no one did!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I try to do my part by volunteering w/ a local rescue group that saves animals in my area from euthanasia at pounds. We take in animals and volunteers foster them until a home is found. However, only so much can be done by so many. As with anything there are limitations.

Animal precinct can be disturbing. I have seen the show on occasion, and the situations are disturbing. At least the ones on TV are being saved... think of all the ones that aren't <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

There are many ways people aquire dogs or other pets besides buying from breeders/petstore. How they get the animal has no relationship w/ whether or not they keep it!!

I agree that euthanasia should be done humanely if it has to be done at all. Just the thought of it makes me very sad........

I am curious, if you don't think dogs should be property, then what do you think they should be???

So, if dogs were not to be property, what would they be? Let's see now, I suppose that an alternative would be to regard them as having the equivalent of children, ones that will never have the mental capacity to decide for itself and so one that we'll need to be the guardian of for life. Let's call them furkids.

As furkids, it will be illegal to buy or sell them, since we do not own them to do so. I suppose that breeding them will still be legal, but only if we intend to keep them. Giving them away will be restricted: only for the purpose of adoption and never for any money.

Our responsibilities TO the furkids will be extensively defined and include mandotary health care (not bad), training (good), the avoidance of any non-medically necessary mutilations (yes, that includeds neutering...not necessarily a good thing) and the avoidance of putting them into dangerous or onerous situations like police work or being guide dogs (definitely not so good).

Our responsibilities FOR the furkids will be sketchy: since we do not own them, we cannot take direct responsibility for damage that they do, except in those situations where they were directly in our control. It'll become a much harder fight for anyone suffering at the hands of an irresponsible dog guardian to take their case to court and win satisfaction. Which is great news for those who don't want to be bothered.

And of course, we come to euthanasia. As furkids, they cannot ever be put down for our convenience. They can only be put down in cases of extreme and unrelievable suffering and a special dispensation will need to be filled and signed to do so. On the good side, only the most humane methods will do.

Who may have a furkid? Why everyone: because people have the right NOT to own something. This isn't mere verbal sophistry -- there are no real prerequisites to having children, neither can there be real prerequisites to having furkids. So long as the adopter (anyone with a pup) is happy, you're qualified.

Who pays? To some extent, the guardians do: since furkids cannot be put down for convenience, that means that those given up or abandoned can be looked after directly at the expense of the last guardian (or even first one if you can make a case that the adopting out was unwise). Which isn't too bad, but welcome to the prospect of seeing someone's wages garnished for the care of the dog they used to have.

For those furkids whose guardians cannot be traced, society must commit to looking after them for their entire natural lifespans. Society in general must pay. If it is obligatory to provide health and education services to the furkids, society must make sure that such a service *can* be provided. Now this is a serious problem. When we pay local taxes for schools and for basic healthcare, we do so because we recognise that children are our community future and not to do so will hurt us directly. But dogs? What possible return can we get out of dogs? With very rare exceptions, dogs benefit ONLY the people who have them, though they can hurt a community at large. Which will be nothing but gravy for those who are against dogs. And probably cause a lot of people in the live and let live camp to join them too.



So, what do get? If we take the view that dogs cannot be property and we take the view that they should be treated then as wards in our care we get some pretty weird positions which don't translate into better care for dogs. I think on the whole, I'd rather keep dogs as property. And encourage better ownership for our parts. It makes more sense and allows us more freedom. Which is good for the dogs too. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dei.

Dei,

I think that was a very well-thought out post.

Dei,I totally agree w/ Chuck! That was exactly where I was going w/ my last comment on my last post!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Let me clarify...Meaning that if you think about it, what else CAN a dog really be? Regardless of how we feel about them as dog loving individuals, they can only be classified as property from a legal standpoint!!

I'm a pet psychic.