Is buying a sick animal 'rescuing' it?

morganafay

Hi, I'm just wondering people's opinions on whether you should buy an animal out of pity, to help it, or whether you are still supporting pet shops / bad breeders?

I feel like I couldn't leave a sick or pregnant animal in a pet shop because that animal needs help as much as any rescue animal, even if you're paying to help it. I think if it feels like the right thing to do then you should do it.

Any thoughts?

Graces7

morganafay wrote: »

Hi, I'm just wondering people's opinions on whether you should buy an animal out of pity, to help it, or whether you are still supporting pet shops / bad breeders?

I feel like I couldn't leave a sick or pregnant animal in a pet shop because that animal needs help as much as any rescue animal, even if you're paying to help it. I think if it feels like the right thing to do then you should do it.

Any thoughts?

Absolutely; go for it if you can.

I know the arguments but ..

Bad breeders etc can only be outlawed in the long term by the laws being changed.

All we are doing by saving all we can is simply like caring for casualties in a war.

No one should be left wounded because the war is wrong.

ISDW

It is a really tough one, and causes many arguments.

I like the starfish story, and whilst I know that by buying a sick animal like this that you are helping to perpetuate animal cruelty, puppy farming etc, I don't know if I could walk away from an animal in need.

Starfish story:

One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed
a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.
Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?”
The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean.
The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”
“Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish?
You can’t make a difference!”
After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish,
and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, he said…”
I made a difference for that one.”

morganafay

I'm glad some other people agree with that.

I wouldn't just buy from a bad breeder or pet shop, but if the animal really needed help, then I would buy it . . .

Graces7

ISDW wrote: »

It is a really tough one, and causes many arguments.

I like the starfish story, and whilst I know that by buying a sick animal like this that you are helping to perpetuate animal cruelty, puppy farming etc, I don't know if I could walk away from an animal in need.

Starfish story:

One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed
a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.
Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?”
The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean.
The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”
“Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish?
You can’t make a difference!”
After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish,
and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, he said…”
I made a difference for that one.”

Lovely story and just perfect. Thank you. It says it all.

Discodog

I probably would buy it & I have in the past - a puppy farm Spaniel that was in dreadful condition.

Given the turnover of the shops one purchase is not going to make a lot of difference. I would hate to think that, if circumstances permitted, I could ever turn a blind eye to an animal in need.

lrushe

No I don't think I could in good conscience pay for an animal where the money would go into the pocket of an unscrupulous owner and add fuel to the fire of the abusive cycle. Rescue an animal fine, take a sickly one for free ok, but not pay for it.
It is a hard one to call as an animal lover and probably break my heart but I think I would have to look at the bigger picture, that being that the only thing I would be doing is making a vacancy for another animal to be produced to live the the same misery, I couldn't let my heart rule my head.

morganafay

I don't think I'd buy just animal just because it was in fairly bad conditions, like a lot of pet shops. But if it was very sick or pregnant then I probably would. I'm not sure if I'd buy from a puppy farm, because all dogs there are in the same conditions, so I don't think I would. But if it was a pet shop and just the odd animal was really sick or pregnant then I would. Because the animal would just really need help . . . if I thought the animal was likely to die or was suffering a lot then something needs to be done quickly. I cold report the shop afterwards, but you'd need to get the animal out of there . . .

The Sweeper

I won't pay the asking price for an animal in those circumstances, but that doesn't mean I do nothing.

The starfish story is lovely, but it misses one major point of paying for a puppy farm puppy, or a pet store animal, or a battery chicken. A human being is directly responsible for the conditions under which intensively farmed animals live, and by buying those animals, you are rewarding that human being, and further more you are enabling them to continue what they are doing.

You could be waiting for the law to change for decades. Do not underestimate the power of supply and demand. Money motivates intensive farmers. If the demand disappears, the motivation to continue selling intensively farmed animals will also disappear.

I educated myself to the local animal laws in Victoria when I moved here and I got involved in cat fostering. It's illegal to sell cats and dogs at markets in this country, so if I see puppies or kittens at a market I'll go and make a total pest of myself to the market managers, point out that stall whatever is illegally displaying pets for sale, cite the law, and the market manager will do something because they don't want the trouble.

I reported the battery chicken sellers at the markets to the local council rangers - repeatedly - because they displayed the chickens in small cages with no shade (or shade that disappeared when the sun moved) so these chickens would be out in 30 degrees in small cages from 7.30am to 2pm when the market closed.

I also do really pikey things like stand about five feet from the seller's desk at the market and in my loudest voice (which gets even more attention because of my accent), I'll say "How much are your chickens? Gosh it's hot today, they look a bit straggly! It must be 30 degrees. Have they any water? They don't seem to have any water. It must be hot in that cage!" and weather the filthy, filthy looks I get from the stallholder before disappearing into the crowd. Often they'll throw a tarpaulin over the cages or refill the water bowls, while I tootle off to report them to the market managers anyway. (I got into a bit of strife one day for challenging a bloke with "chickens are moulting" on a cardboard sign on a cage of half bald battery chooks - v. loudly "I didn't know chickens moulted like that, I thought they were bald from being battery chickens and being kept in those tiny cages and trying to get their little heads out through the bars" - didn't realise his early-20s son was behind me and was in my ear a second later hissing at me to fuck off).

Unless you become a rescue there is really a limit to what you can do - and a lot of rescuers get burned out because they can't accept that they can't save them all. Worse again, I know some people who've taken on animals they couldn't cope with, with the very best of intentions, and the animals have suffered for it. On another forum I post on, a woman who took on a bunch of AIDs infected cats to save them from the pound ended up becoming what, in her own words, she hated. She couldn't cope with them - no more money, other personal problems, insurmountable behavioural problems with too many animals in a small space - and she surrendered them to the pound in the hope they'd be picked up in their one week. They weren't adopted, and they were destroyed at the end of that week. Now she has to deal with the guilt of the unhappiness of the last week of their lives as they moved out of their familiar home into a pound environment. It was a gamble, yes, but it didn't pay off and now she's on the emotional rack, wondering if the 10 minute car ride to the vets to be PTS would have been more fair.

When people get themselves into that sort of state, they're way past the point of "oh could you not contact XYZ no kill place" or "can you give them another month and try to rehome some" and so on.

The six cats I have are my limit in terms of permanent pets - this is the biggest number I can attend to properly, show even-handed affection to so none are ignored, afford to feed well, groom, worm (milbemax tablets x 24 annually are not cheap). I also have to keep in mind that if my circumstances change suddenly and dramatically - which they can, in this modern world - this is the limit of the numbers I can definitely continue to look after or could successfully rehome (oh, the horror ) if it came down to it.

If I were to take on more cats, my existing animals would start to suffer. I have a big enough house to foster, (keeping fosters permanently separate from my own cats) but I don't have the time any more because my working hours changed and you can't foster kittens while you're out 8.5 hours a day - they need more socialising than that to ensure they're affectionate and interested and therefore 'sell themselves' to potential new owners.

Saying that, I would never turn an animal away from my door and I won't walk past a mistreated animal without trying to intervene in some way (gives DH the heebies sometimes ).

It is a hard one to call though - once you commit yourself, once you say "oh maybe if I just..." then that's it, you're sucked in, you've made a pledge to that animal and you won't be able to walk away.

If everyone did just a bit, tried just a bit harder, and even if they didn't want an animal themselves if they were careful with their money (don't buy battery eggs, or battery egg products; create demand for non-intensively farmed products by buying them, and even if you're not in the market for a dog or a cat but you know someone who's breeding unethically, then don't spend money on any other business they're involved in), then we'd be in far, far better shape than we are now in terms of animal welfare.

Speak out. Speak loud. Intervene. Keep your money in your pocket for as long as you can, and if you do have to spend something to ease your conscience, HAGGLE. These people don't care about these animals - their intrinsic value is very low to them, and often they'll sell you the animals for a tiny fraction of the price - less, even, than it's cost them to breed them and feed them, just to be rid of them. If that happens, take the animal home and take pictures of them in their decimated states, and use that wonderful thing, the online blog, to name and shame the seller. Publicise their plight - everyone with a computer has access to the outside world these days. Write letters to the paper - especially your local paper (because they like to publish things like that. My husband has accused me of channelling my inner-65-year-old-grumpy-person because I write letters to the local paper.)

Attitudes have a huge influence on market forces - change people's attitudes.

Here's a counter to the starfish story - buy one puppy-farm puppy, and you've saved one puppy. Complain, campaign, name and shame the puppy farmer, and you could save every puppy he'll never breed.

morganafay

I know you're just enabling the breeder/shop to breed more, but I figure that they'll get sold anyway, so if one is really sick or pregnant, then at least it should be bought by someone who will know what to do.

I know it's not a perfect solution, or even a very good solution at all, but I still think I'd buy one if it was really sick (like looked like it could die soon) and then report them to the ISPCA. If it was just very bad conditions, and maybe a bit sick looking (like with mites or somthing) then I probably wouldn't buy them, but would just report it to the ISPCA.

Graces7

The Sweeper wrote: »

I won't pay the asking price for an animal in those circumstances, but that doesn't mean I do nothing.

The starfish story is lovely, but it misses one major point of paying for a puppy farm puppy, or a pet store animal, or a battery chicken. A human being is directly responsible for the conditions under which intensively farmed animals live, and by buying those animals, you are rewarding that human being, and further more you are enabling them to continue what they are doing.

You could be waiting for the law to change for decades. Do not underestimate the power of supply and demand. Money motivates intensive farmers. If the demand disappears, the motivation to continue selling intensively farmed animals will also disappear.

I educated myself to the local animal laws in Victoria when I moved here and I got involved in cat fostering. It's illegal to sell cats and dogs at markets in this country, so if I see puppies or kittens at a market I'll go and make a total pest of myself to the market managers, point out that stall whatever is illegally displaying pets for sale, cite the law, and the market manager will do something because they don't want the trouble.

I reported the battery chicken sellers at the markets to the local council rangers - repeatedly - because they displayed the chickens in small cages with no shade (or shade that disappeared when the sun moved) so these chickens would be out in 30 degrees in small cages from 7.30am to 2pm when the market closed.

I also do really pikey things like stand about five feet from the seller's desk at the market and in my loudest voice (which gets even more attention because of my accent), I'll say "How much are your chickens? Gosh it's hot today, they look a bit straggly! It must be 30 degrees. Have they any water? They don't seem to have any water. It must be hot in that cage!" and weather the filthy, filthy looks I get from the stallholder before disappearing into the crowd. Often they'll throw a tarpaulin over the cages or refill the water bowls, while I tootle off to report them to the market managers anyway. (I got into a bit of strife one day for challenging a bloke with "chickens are moulting" on a cardboard sign on a cage of half bald battery chooks - v. loudly "I didn't know chickens moulted like that, I thought they were bald from being battery chickens and being kept in those tiny cages and trying to get their little heads out through the bars" - didn't realise his early-20s son was behind me and was in my ear a second later hissing at me to fuck off).

Unless you become a rescue there is really a limit to what you can do - and a lot of rescuers get burned out because they can't accept that they can't save them all. Worse again, I know some people who've taken on animals they couldn't cope with, with the very best of intentions, and the animals have suffered for it. On another forum I post on, a woman who took on a bunch of AIDs infected cats to save them from the pound ended up becoming what, in her own words, she hated. She couldn't cope with them - no more money, other personal problems, insurmountable behavioural problems with too many animals in a small space - and she surrendered them to the pound in the hope they'd be picked up in their one week. They weren't adopted, and they were destroyed at the end of that week. Now she has to deal with the guilt of the unhappiness of the last week of their lives as they moved out of their familiar home into a pound environment. It was a gamble, yes, but it didn't pay off and now she's on the emotional rack, wondering if the 10 minute car ride to the vets to be PTS would have been more fair.

When people get themselves into that sort of state, they're way past the point of "oh could you not contact XYZ no kill place" or "can you give them another month and try to rehome some" and so on.

The six cats I have are my limit in terms of permanent pets - this is the biggest number I can attend to properly, show even-handed affection to so none are ignored, afford to feed well, groom, worm (milbemax tablets x 24 annually are not cheap). I also have to keep in mind that if my circumstances change suddenly and dramatically - which they can, in this modern world - this is the limit of the numbers I can definitely continue to look after or could successfully rehome (oh, the horror ) if it came down to it.

If I were to take on more cats, my existing animals would start to suffer. I have a big enough house to foster, (keeping fosters permanently separate from my own cats) but I don't have the time any more because my working hours changed and you can't foster kittens while you're out 8.5 hours a day - they need more socialising than that to ensure they're affectionate and interested and therefore 'sell themselves' to potential new owners.

Saying that, I would never turn an animal away from my door and I won't walk past a mistreated animal without trying to intervene in some way (gives DH the heebies sometimes ).

It is a hard one to call though - once you commit yourself, once you say "oh maybe if I just..." then that's it, you're sucked in, you've made a pledge to that animal and you won't be able to walk away.

If everyone did just a bit, tried just a bit harder, and even if they didn't want an animal themselves if they were careful with their money (don't buy battery eggs, or battery egg products; create demand for non-intensively farmed products by buying them, and even if you're not in the market for a dog or a cat but you know someone who's breeding unethically, then don't spend money on any other business they're involved in), then we'd be in far, far better shape than we are now in terms of animal welfare.

Speak out. Speak loud. Intervene. Keep your money in your pocket for as long as you can, and if you do have to spend something to ease your conscience, HAGGLE. These people don't care about these animals - their intrinsic value is very low to them, and often they'll sell you the animals for a tiny fraction of the price - less, even, than it's cost them to breed them and feed them, just to be rid of them. If that happens, take the animal home and take pictures of them in their decimated states, and use that wonderful thing, the online blog, to name and shame the seller. Publicise their plight - everyone with a computer has access to the outside world these days. Write letters to the paper - especially your local paper (because they like to publish things like that. My husband has accused me of channelling my inner-65-year-old-grumpy-person because I write letters to the local paper.)

Attitudes have a huge influence on market forces - change people's attitudes.

Here's a counter to the starfish story - buy one puppy-farm puppy, and you've saved one puppy. Complain, campaign, name and shame the puppy farmer, and you could save every puppy he'll never breed.

re the second highlight.. Yes, but doing one does not exclude doing the other.
We cannot all campaign; disabled pensioners have a limited sphere of action.

re first highlight.. on a tiny income, we cannot afford free range, organic stuff and I have stopped feeling any guilt over that and tell others the same. We have to eat; period, and the difference in the cost of free range and battery is huge. And many on very low incomes are in the same situation. Diet is very restricted anyways by cost these days.

morganafay

I agree you can do both, buy the animal and then try to get the place shut down.

I don't know if I would buy a puppy from a bad situation, but I don't know if I could resist. Even in college when we were talking about how you should make sure the parents of puppies are checked for genetic conditions before buying them, my teacher asked me if my Cavs' parents were checked for heart murmurs, but then said "well even if they weren't, you'd still have bought the cute puppies!" I wouldn't really have! but if they were sick then maybe yeah.

morganafay

It's kind of like people going to bad "rescues" and paying €100 to get a sick puppy . . . that has never seen a vet or been vaccinated or anything.

lrushe

Discodog wrote: »

Given the turnover of the shops one purchase is not going to make a lot of difference.

morganafay wrote: »

I know you're just enabling the breeder/shop to breed more, but I figure that they'll get sold anyway,

The problem with this is if 100 people buy a 100 sickly animasl, all under the assumption that they are the only ones doing this and they are 'rescuing' the animals, then that is 100 animals sold to make room for 100 more animals to be produced and mistreated, all the while lining the pockets of the unethical breeders, petshops etc. It is definately a supply and demand industry where the biggest difference you can make is to take away the demand. The bad breeders / petshops make a living off pulling at people's heart strings and to the individual animal of course you're making a difference (if it lives) but my thoughts would always be with the countless other animals who will follow this animal and who I am enabling to be produced.

Graces7

lrushe wrote: »

The problem with this is if 100 people buy a 100 sickly animasl, all under the assumption that they are the only ones doing this and they are 'rescuing' the animals, then that is 100 animals sold to make room for 100 more animals to be produced and mistreated, all the while lining the pockets of the unethical breeders, petshops etc. It is definately a supply and demand industry where the biggest difference you can make is to take away the demand. The bad breeders / petshops make a living off pulling at people's heart strings and to the individual animal of course you're making a difference (if it lives) but my thoughts would always be with the countless other animals who will follow this animal and who I am enabling to be produced.

Still I would rescue whatever the circumstances.For the sake of that one wee dog in front of me.

Always rescue; always save.

morganafay

I know what you mean, I don't mean if they're just sickly, but if they're really sick like they look like they're going to die (which could easily happen with small animals in pet shops) then something has to be done quickly. I know it's just supporting the shop, but on that rare occasion that there's one that sick, I'd prefer to support the pet shop then let the animal die / let someone buy it who won't know what to do. After going to the vet then I'd go complain to the pet shop and tell them I have a huge vet bill and try to get my money back.

When I bought a pregnant guinea pig before (from a shop I was told was good but someone in animal rescue, but wasn't so good afterwards) we went back and got our money back. They wanted the guinea pig back, but obviously we weren't going to give her back.

Graces7

Was thinking re this. Why not buy then report to SPCA and get the shop sued? You have the evidence after all....

Or is that having your cake and eating it too?

Once was in a situation like that with a bad rescue place. Would not let the kittens, who had sickened with enteritis caught there, return there to die, but challenged the centre and managed behind the scenes to get them funding to improve the place.

Two of the three kittens survived and are now my much loved pets.

peasant

Graces7 wrote: »

Always rescue; always save.

I would absolutely and categorically disagree, for the following reasons:

- The one sick puppy that just about made it to the petshop probably had several even sicker siblings that never made it there ...but the one sale will create enough incentive for the "breeder" and "dealer" to try again. If nobody buys sick animals, breeding will improve far quicker than by legislation.

- If the animal is already sick and half dead at such a young age, who knows how much more it will suffer once it gets older. By "rescuing" a sickly young animal you might actually be raising an animal that will only suffer more pain and diffficulties as it gets older. Not to mention the pain and strain on your nerves and wallet that you experience while nursing this sick little creature through its pretty miserable life ...money and energy that would be far better spent on animals that actually have good prospects and really need rescuing.

- It is not unkown for unscroupulous dealers and/or breeders to deliberately let animals suffer and present them in less than ideal condition ...suffering sells, as the buyer doesn't just buy but "rescue" and feels so much better for it. Suffering is an industry.

morganafay

That's all true, but I don't know how I could leave the animal there. I've seen sick animals in pet shops before or just seen puppies there for months with no socialisation and nobody buying them, but not had the money or space for them, so obviously didn't buy them. But I feel so bad for them.

I saw an ad on donedeal the other day selling a pregnant guinea pig and a male guinea pig because they were "getting into rabbits" instead. I texted them but she was already sold. I would have bought her just to give her a good home and rehome/keep the babies, because otherwise what kind of person would buy her? I really hope someone good bought her . . .

Graces7

peasant wrote: »

I would absolutely and categorically disagree, for the following reasons:

- The one sick puppy that just about made it to the petshop probably had several even sicker siblings that never made it there ...but the one sale will create enough incentive for the "breeder" and "dealer" to try again. If nobody buys sick animals, breeding will improve far quicker than by legislation.

- If the animal is already sick and half dead at such a young age, who knows how much more it will suffer once it gets older. By "rescuing" a sickly young animal you might actually be raising an animal that will only suffer more pain and diffficulties as it gets older. Not to mention the pain and strain on your nerves and wallet that you experience while nursing this sick little creature through its pretty miserable life ...money and energy that would be far better spent on animals that actually have good prospects and really need rescuing.

- It is not unkown for unscroupulous dealers and/or breeders to deliberately let animals suffer and present them in less than ideal condition ...suffering sells, as the buyer doesn't just buy but "rescue" and feels so much better for it. Suffering is an industry.

All the more reason to at least see it gets some comfort and support.

This reminds me eerily of the BBC who did a TV programme re the Dying Rooms in China. They actually filmed a child dying; said it would have more impact than rescuing her, which they could very easily have done.

Knowingly allowing any suffering is surely as bad as causing it.

Always alleviate, always help.

peasant

Graces7 wrote: »

Knowingly allowing any suffering is surely as bad as causing it.

If I pass by a sickly pup in a petshop/market stall, I'm neither allowing nor causing the suffering ...the petshop owners are.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't report them ...I just wouldn't support their methods with my money

As for the starfish story ...the receding tide does not charge you for throwing the starfish back.

Graces7

peasant wrote: »

If I pass by a sickly pup in a petshop/market stall, I'm neither allowing nor causing the suffering ...the petshop owners are.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't report them ...I just wouldn't support their methods with my money

As for the starfish story ...the receding tide does not charge you for throwing the starfish back.

A famous man once said that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing.. for me that would mean leaving the critter with the evil men.

Money is worth only what it can buy. If it can buy safety then so be it.. and report them too of course!

lrushe

Graces7 wrote: »

A famous man once said that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing.. !

I don't think anyone would suggest standing by and doing nothing but if there is a chance to prevent one animal suffering by forestake ten I don't think I could do that. I think you have to look at the bigger picture and as I said before rule with your head and not your heart.
If an animal is sickly often times you can wear these people down and get the animal for free as it is often times more of a burden to them, I stand by my position never to line the pockets of those who mistreat animals.

peasant

Graces7 wrote: »

A famous man once said that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing.. for me that would mean leaving the critter with the evil men.

And all it takes for "evil men" (why not women, btw?) to make profit is naive do-gooders to fall for their misery-trap.

You may rescue one poor critter ...but by doing so you provide the motivation (and the reward) for producing more of them.
You may well report those people ...they'll just set up their stall somewhere else to go fishing for more do-gooders.

By all means report them ...but don't give them your money. As long as these bastards are getting paid, they'll keep doing it.

"Rescuing" the one poor animal does no good at all when in its wake ten more get bred under terrible conditions to supply the "demand" for poor critters.


It's the same as as those misguided animal rights activists that release hundreds of non-native mink from fur farms into the wild to wreak havoc among the native animal population ...you have to see the big picture to take the correct action.

morganafay

If I ever see a sickly animal now and have the money/space for it, then I'll definitely try to haggle them down. If I get it for cheap, then they're not making any money, so I'll try that.

I definitely think you guys are right that buying one is supporting the trade, but if I could buy one then I still probably wouldn't be able to resist it . . .

Graces7

peasant wrote: »

And all it takes for "evil men" (why not women, btw?) to make profit is naive do-gooders to fall for their misery-trap.

You may rescue one poor critter ...but by doing so you provide the motivation (and the reward) for producing more of them.
You may well report those people ...they'll just set up their stall somewhere else to go fishing for more do-gooders.

By all means report them ...but don't give them your money. As long as these bastards are getting paid, they'll keep doing it.

"Rescuing" the one poor animal does no good at all when in its wake ten more get bred under terrible conditions to supply the "demand" for poor critters.


It's the same as as those misguided animal rights activists that release hundreds of non-native mink from fur farms into the wild to wreak havoc among the native animal population ...you have to see the big picture to take the correct action.

"Men" simply means mankind here as I am sure you know!.

You set too much store by money, really. It is only worth what it can buy, what it can do for others.

Itis legislation that is needed.

As for me; I shall be like the good ladies who used to buy caged larks to release them. Sure, the sellers went out and caught more, but they too were released then.

Money is an expression of love here.

My "job" in life is to heal and help with whatever I have.

NB this is not the same as the mink; dastardly actions as you rightly say.

And I am seeing the broader picture; nothing I can do about it but I can help the critters innocently caught up in it and that I shall do.
So please do not patronise me!
I have lived more years on this earth than probably anyone here and have made choices with what little time I have left now.

denhaagenite

Graces you are absolutely insane. Pay for a dog to be neutered or vaccinated- DO NOT pay for a sick dog to encourage the b*****d breeder to farm more dogs, many of which just die before anyone ever sees them.

No offence to anyone, but this is small minded- it happens ALL OVER the country and in many other countries aswell. Support the rescues and advocacy groups who know how to do what's right for ALL animals so that now and in the future things can be allowed to improve. There needs to be an overhaul of the system and better preventative/educational measures put in place. Volunteer if you can, donate if you can and publicise the atrocities- this is what's needed. Awareness is the key. Don't be a martyr because it doesn't help the situation.

peasant

Graces7 wrote: »

As for me; I shall be like the good ladies who used to buy caged larks to release them. Sure, the sellers went out and caught more, but they too were released then.

And that's where you're wrong.

We're not talking about a few deviants catching single birds and selling them here, we're talking about an industry that breeds for profit with total disregard for the animals.
For one pup to make it to market, several others probably had to die and the mother (and most likely the father too) spend their whole life in a stinking, dark box somewhere. As this industry spends next to nothing on their stock, every red cent you give to them is pure profit and encourages them to keep on going.
Every single red cent that you give to them directly kills more animals and prolongs the suffering of countless more.

lrushe

Graces7 wrote: »

And I am seeing the broader picture; nothing I can do about it

There might be nothing you can do about it but unfortunately there is alot you can do to make it worse and giving money to the scum who make their living out of animals living in misery is one of them. You might be older in years than most people here and I respect that but don't write us younger posters off as not knowing as much, you might just learn a thing or two from us.

morganafay

It was really interesting to see people's opinions on this. I posted the same thing on a guinea pig forum (an anti-breeding pro-rescue forum) and got pretty much the same responses, some saying they'd buy the animal, some saying not to.

But everyone is the same that they want to help animals, just in different ways.

morganafay

Graces7 wrote: »

As for me; I shall be like the good ladies who used to buy caged larks to release them. Sure, the sellers went out and caught more, but they too were released then.

Hmm, this kinda made me see it from the opposite perspective. It seems totally pointless to release them when they'll just catch more. I guess that's what it would be like to just go to a bad pet shop and buy a lot of animals to give to good homes, because the pet shop would just get more.

But if the lark/pet shop animal was really really sick, then that is different to me.

Like if it was a person, who was very sick and possibly going to die, then that would be an emergency and they'd have to be removed from that situation. So for animals, it's an emergency too!

peasant

morganafay wrote: »

Like if it was a person, who was very sick and possibly going to die, then that would be an emergency and they'd have to be removed from that situation. So for animals, it's an emergency too!

There is no doubting that it is an emergency for the individual sick animal on display and by not taking it out of that situation, you're probably "condemning" it to death.

But if you do "rescue" it you provide the incentive for these bastards to condemn even more unseen animals (those that never make it to the point of sale in the first place) to death and suffering.

If we were talking about people ...how many people would you be prepared to sacrifice (directly or indirectly) to rescue one sick person?


The only way you could rescue that animal is if you could persuade the gardai to seize that animal and hand it over to you for free to look after it(while fining the sellers for braking the law)

I'm not sure if current legislation extends that far.

morganafay

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I'd do then . . . It'd be hard to just leave the animal there, but I definitely see your point.

I guess if I could haggle down the price then they wouldn't be making any money (after what they spent to buy it, feed it, for bedding, etc.) or I could just report the shop to the ISPCA. (or both)

Usually when I've seen sick animals I've not had the money or space for them anyway.