Ray Darcy Show advertising pups

ryan84

http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Ray-DArcy-Show/Blog.aspx

Came across this blog post this morning and it really annoyed me. They are helping someone rehome some pups her dog had calling her a 'dr doolittle'. She didnt bother to spay her dog and ended up with a lot of pups and no one wants to take one.

What about all the dogs in pounds around the country waiting to be put to sleep today.

Maybe I am over reacting but I think it is very irresponsible to be rehoming dogs through a radio station.

gregers85

Ya I can see um getting a nice bit of schtick for this but I suppose the heart is in the right place trying to re-home the pups! Once they all go to good homes that's the main thing I think

Magenta

ryan84 wrote: »

http://www.todayfm.com/Shows/Weekdays/Ray-DArcy-Show/Blog.aspx

Came across this blog post this morning and it really annoyed me. They are helping someone rehome some pups her dog had calling her a 'dr doolittle'. She didnt bother to spay her dog and ended up with a lot of pups and no one wants to take one.

What about all the dogs in pounds around the country waiting to be put to sleep today.

Maybe I am over reacting but I think it is very irresponsible to be rehoming dogs through a radio station.

You know nothing about how she came to have a pregnant dog, how do you know she didn't rescue it? There's far bigger problems in the world than someone trying to rehome puppies on a radio station. Dogs Trust have TV ads, the Pet Rescue show on Channel 4 always featured an appeal from a shelter about an animal needing a home.

ryan84

details from the owner on the radio now 'pixies best friend died so she went on a mission to get pregnant to feel better. pixie has been with them since she was a pup.'

I was right to be annoyed.

gregers85

ryan84 wrote: »

details from the owner on the radio now 'pixies best friend died so she went on a mission to get pregnant to feel better. pixie has been with them since she was a pup.'

I was right to be annoyed.

Jesus that's shocking to be fair!!

Vojera

It seems pretty irresponsible that she let her unspayed dog wander. She didn't make it clear if the dog was just wandering off or actually escaping, but it sounded like it happened a few times.

The main thing, I suppose, is that the pups get good homes, so fingers crossed she's pretty discerning and not just looking to offload them.

Toulouse

I wonder if I wrote the show a heartfelt letter about all the abandoned dogs that will have to spend months in kennels waiting for a good home due to the stupidity of people would they help me find them all good homes? I think not.

Am sickened.

Doubt the owners standards when it comes to new homes will be that high if this is the situation she has already created with her own dog.

ryan84

I listen to the show everyday in work and any time I text in it has been read out. Today I text 4 times asking what about the dogs sitting in dog pounds waiting to be put to sleep. Of course they didn't read it out. And I am sure I am not the only one who text in too.

I tried to ring them aswell but no answer. Last week 10(i think) 6 week old pups were found dumped and put in the pound. People were looking for homes for them urgently because they were about to be pts. These are the kind of dogs that should be helped by them.

If you haven't heard the owner on the show listen to the second hour on play back for todays show. Its near the end of it as far as I remember. (near 10.50 as thats when I posted about it here)

gimmick

Total over reaction. Her dog was depressed having lost her best friend. Her dog is now happy. If she finds homes for the pups what is the issue? None.

kylith

gimmick wrote: »

Total over reaction. Her dog was depressed having lost her best friend. Her dog is now happy. If she finds homes for the pups what is the issue? None.

Do you really think a dog is even capable of thinking "I'm depressed because my friend died. If I had puppies then I'd feel better."? If so, what's she going to do when the dog gets depressed when the puppies get taken away?

She didn't neuter her dog and the dog then was either allowed to wander, or escaped from the garden and wound up pregnant because of her negligence. She is responsible for the rehoming of the puppies, and the radio station should be doing everything it can to persuade people to rehome from shelters, not from people who can't be bothered to neuter their pets.

DBB

gimmick wrote: »

Total over reaction. Her dog was depressed having lost her best friend. Her dog is now happy. If she finds homes for the pups what is the issue? None.

Do you think the dog would still be depressed now if she hadn't had the pups?
There is an issue. There is an issue with every person who deliberately and facetiously allows their bitch to have a litter of pups. The issue in 2010 was almost equal to the number 6000. That is the amount of unwanted, healthy dogs killed in Irish pounds that year, figures for 2011 aren't out yet. The issue also equals a further ~20,000 unwanted dogs per annum that are rehomed by unpaid, voluntary rescue organisations.
The issue further equals ? unwanted dogs killed every year in a private capacity by their owners, the ones who don't let their dogs go to rescue or the pound. These are the dogs killed by the vet, or by a bullet to the head.
No issue? Come off it.

ISDW

How about the phone call I got this morning from someone with a 7 month old pup that was sitting outside a pound, they had told them that if they surrendered the dog in it would killed, so they phoned me. I have no room, can't take it, so another dog dies - but hey, its okay, people like this lovely lady let their dog have puppies to make them feel better.


ETA: I apologise if I have broken forum rules, but i am just at the end of my tether with the situation here, have gone way past the angry stage, am at the 'I give up' stage.

sav1980

I didn't hear this on the radio - I no longer listen to Ray D'Arcy since every one of his shows began to sound the same, but I do wish that broadcasters / journalists when covering these kinds of issues would just take 30 seconds at the end to urge people to adopt a rescue animal instead of buying. Heartbreaking to know how many animals get put to sleep in Ireland every year.

andreac

gimmick wrote: »

Total over reaction. Her dog was depressed having lost her best friend. Her dog is now happy. If she finds homes for the pups what is the issue? None.

Really?? You think so??

Try asking all the rescues and pounds who are up to ninety and are at breaking point trying to rehome all these unplanned, unwanted pups every year, thousands of them, and ask them is it an over reaction!! :mad:

fatmammycat

It seems to be gone off the blog now. Hmm.

Vojera

So it is. I imagine that's probably due to them getting tonnes of emails from people wanting the pups than them rethinking their position, though.

ryan84

ryan84 wrote: »

details from the owner on the radio now 'pixies best friend died so she went on a mission to get pregnant to feel better. pixie has been with them since she was a pup.'

I was right to be annoyed.

Its funny when you spell it out it sounds bad.

It also sounds bad when you say you have an animal and i am going to have it cut open and have its sex organs removed in order to stop procreation hence playing god, and clearly denying the animal its rights it was born with.

I always hear this argument about shelters being full. So this whole neutering and setting up dog registration does not work. So why not ban dogs as pets ?

Collectively humans are not capable of owning dogs.

Whispered

Deleted User wrote: »

Collectively humans are not capable of owning dogs.

Well some of them aren't.

Isn't killing thousands of unwanted dogs every year also taking away a right they were born with?

Which would you think is better, to take away their "right" to procreate, or their right to life?

fatmammycat

Deleted User wrote: »

Its funny when you spell it out it sounds bad.

It also sounds bad when you say you have an animal and i am going to have it cut open and have its sex organs removed in order to stop procreation hence playing god, and clearly denying the animal its rights it was born with.

I always hear this argument about shelters being full. So this whole neutering and setting up dog registration does not work. So why not ban dogs as pets ?

Collectively humans are not capable of owning dogs.

This makes no sense. I play 'god' in every aspect of my dog's life. If I choose to feed him, what I feed him ( mackerel for lunch today, oh the power); whether I exercise him, or pat him on the head, godlike I will decide. Now my dog is intact and will remain so, but again- godlike- I decide where he goes and when, and who he mingles with. I won't breed him, because– godlike– I've decided there are enough pups in the world. It's got nothing to do with 'rights', he has no rights, only what I, godlike, confer onto him. If I want to kill him tomorrow I can take him to my vet and insist he is killed. He doesn't even have the 'right' to life.
Luckily for him, I love him to bits and am a considerate owner. Suggesting that neutering or spaying dogs does not help the over population of unwanted dogs in this country is egregious.
If people refuse to neuter/spay that's also up to them, but if they refuse and then let their dogs wander and procreate willy nilly, then god like, they are doing their animals a disservice.

gregers85

I reckon they have got a lo of negative feedback on this one! they have taken the post down from their blog!!

candy69

we have five dogs we also foster dogs. it makes me sick to see so many unwanted animals and mistreated animals. our dogs are all neautered and spayed. there are so many gorgeous animals in shelters and pounds through no fault of their own just selfish people breeding for money and selfish people buying them and then not wanting them its heartbreaking. the amount of animals we have fostered that have had so much crueltly done to them :mad. if people went to animal shelters and seen the sadness and distress they would think about having litters.

ryan84

This is the letter that was read out. I didn't realise how long it was when I decided to type it to post it here!! The dog pixie is a lab boxer cross.

"It all begins 6 years ago when a little pup called pixie came to live with us. We already had a dog called Roxy. Roxy was the wisest animal I have ever come across. She was devoted and loving dog and we had a privilege of welcoming to our family. Roxy and Pixie became inseparable. Roxie was the responsible adult. Pixie was the playful youngster. They absolutely adored each other. A few weeks ago, three weeks before the birth of our third baby Roxy got very ill and we had no choice but to put her down. We were devastated. It was difficult not to imagine seeing her happy face welcoming us home any more. I believe we know very little about the levels of emotions animals’ experience, we don’t know and we don’t give them enough credit for the depth of feelings. After Roxy was gone, pixies changed dramatically. It took us a good few days to figure out why she insisted on sleeping on the boot of the car, then it hit us it was the last place she saw Roxy alive. For the next two months pixie was physically sick, she would lie down and shiver so much that the four of us would take turns consoling her. Then out of the blue she started running away. A month after her first escapade it all became clear. Pixie was on a mission. She was on a mission to get pregnant.
At this stage she was six years old and never before did she show any interest in her male friends. It really wasn’t like her. Eight weeks ago we all watched the birth of our ten puppies. What a lesson in love that was. She always made sure to touch with her nose or lick each and every one of them, never leaving any one of them out. I watched with amazement how, having fed them for the one hundredth time she would sit down and with pride in her eyes she would watch them play with each other. She really seemed to have found herself in this new role. My husband thinks that I have lost it, that a dog cannot will herself to get pregnant. Well watching pixie deal with grief and lineless for the past few months makes me question that.
The pups are now eight weeks old. They consume 2 kg of meat plus 2kg of pasta and rice a day. Not to mention some dry food as well. They are ready to go into the world to make some other families happy even though parting with them will be very difficult for us. I feel that I owe it to pixie to not only find homes for her pups but to also find people who are willing to open their hearts and love them."

kylith

So first they teach the dog to continue acting in a depressed manner. They they don't contain it within their own property, which is against the law. And of course she was 'on a mission to get pregnant' they didn't neuter her and she came into heat! A dog can't 'decide' to have a family, the body says 'find a male' so that's what she does.

candy69

candy69 wrote: »

we have five dogs we also foster dogs. it makes me sick to see so many unwanted animals and mistreated animals. our dogs are all neautered and spayed. there are so many gorgeous animals in shelters and pounds through no fault of their own just selfish people breeding for money and selfish people buying them and then not wanting them its heartbreaking. the amount of animals we have fostered that have had so much cruelty done to them :mad. if people went to animal shelters and seen the sadness and distress they would think about having litters.

Yet these people are not breeding for money. The same thing happens with terrapins. Now there is a push to ban selling terrapins as pets and rightly so.
Dog people dont like to entertain this idea and shy away from it.
Imagine if you were to put a ban on all dog breeding . In 20 years there could be little to know suffering of dogs.

candy69

no but people aren't stupid, you know when your dog is in heat. why in the name of god would you let your animal roam in heat. i am a dog person and i have the same views for other animals let it be terrapins, cats or any other animals.

bluecherry74

Dre as in Dray wrote: »

Imagine if you were to put a ban on all dog breeding . In 20 years there could be little to know suffering of dogs.

If you were to ban all dog breeding, in 20 years there would be no dogs!

fatmammycat

bluecherry74 wrote: »

If you were to ban all dog breeding, in 20 years there would be no dogs!

This is his foray into the hyperbolical zone. We have too many people unwilling to prevent their dogs breeding; solution: let's punish all dog owners, that'll learn 'em.

Rommie

Deleted User wrote: »

Its funny when you spell it out it sounds bad.

It also sounds bad when you say you have an animal and i am going to have it cut open and have its sex organs removed in order to stop procreation hence playing god, and clearly denying the animal its rights it was born with.

I always hear this argument about shelters being full. So this whole neutering and setting up dog registration does not work. So why not ban dogs as pets ?

Collectively humans are not capable of owning dogs.

Yeah, like we haven't done that already? Do wolves come into heat two, even possibly three, times a year? No, so we've already played god. We've created these animals that can reproduce far too often for many years, surely as the creators of this problem we should be the ones to try and correct it?

Quite frankly, I'm furious that they played this tripe and go on just conventiently ignoring all of the other animals desperately needing homes.

DBB

Deleted User wrote: »

It also sounds bad when you say you have an animal and i am going to have it cut open and have its sex organs removed in order to stop procreation hence playing god, and clearly denying the animal its rights it was born with.

I always hear this argument about shelters being full. So this whole neutering and setting up dog registration does not work. So why not ban dogs as pets ?

Collectively humans are not capable of owning dogs.

Dre, I may have asked you this before. Perhaps not. But can you tell me, do you eat meat? Just need to know where on the sliding scale of ethics you place yourself.

I don't know if you're being deliberately facetious, my suspicion is that you knew you'd provoke a reaction here with your post, but in case I'm wrong, I'll reply to counter some of your misapprehensions.

Make no mistake... the domestication of ANY species is playing God. That is the simple reality. We choose which animals to breed, we choose which animals will not. That is how we domesticated all presently domesticated species. Make no mistake about that. So, let's get rid of all domesticated animals, shall we?

Can you tell me, which works better for you in your grand scheme of things? Cutting open an animal (under anaesthetic) to remove its sexual organs (followed by after-care and pain killers), or, putting a sack of unwanted kittens or pups into a barrel of water? Or, putting your unwanted litters/adults into the pound or rescue for someone else to deal with? Or, putting a bullet in the back of X thousand greyhounds' heads each year? Collectively, these methods are chosen by the owners of at least 30,000 healthy dogs every single year in Ireland.
So, which is more ethical Dre? Stop them reporducing? Or kill the result?
It's already been asked of you, and I'd like to second that I'm looking for your answer too.

Or, do we ban dog ownership? How will this work? If dog ownership is banned, that's the end of Guide Dogs, therapy dogs, cancer-detection dogs, epilepsy-detecting dogs, bomb-detection dogs, drug detection dogs, counterfeit-good detection dogs, protection dogs for our Gardai, army, navy, fisheries, and customs services, cattle herding dogs, sheep herding dogs, gundogs (and consequently, shooting, and consequently, all game birds, and consequently, their habitat), search and rescue dogs, and, pet dogs, proven to hugely enhance the quality of life for their owners.
So, if you don't mind me saying so,
I dont see how your suggestion can work without having some serious knock-on consequences. What do you say? How will you get around all of the above with your Grand Scheme?

You will find that it is the very people who don't actually need to neuter their dogs that are getting them neutered: responsible pet owner's dogs could have 12 pairs of testicles, they still wouldn't be allowed to procreate. It's people like that numpty on Ray D'Arcy who would, with your strange Grand Scheme, cause all of us who benefit from dogs to lose a highly valuable resource. But until these people either (a) stop wilfully allowing their dogs to roam, illegally, or (b) get them neutered, then the unwanted dog problem will go on and on and on. So, why do we all have to pay for the numpties?

I take great issue with you saying that collectively, humans are not capable of owning dogs. For starters, without humans, there would be no dogs. Or cattle. Or sheep. Or horses. Or hens.
But more's the point, there are countries who do not have an unwanted dog problem, because of different cultural attitudes, and because their dog control laws are rigourously enforced. Sweden, Austria, Switzerland are examples close to home. New South Wales have a model for dog ownership that makes those of us who are fighting to save dogs in Ireland green with envy in many ways:
http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_InformationIndex.asp?mi=9&ml=1&areaindex=CA&index=301

Even closer to home, although not perfect, our neighbours in the UK have a far healthier view of dog ownership than we do, and with the exception of some parts, they don't have much of an unwanted dog problem, and have a very low euthanasia rate for healthy adult dogs. And, as is evidenced here, there are a lot of dog owners in Ireland who are more than "capable" of owning dogs in a way that does not impact on society, other than in a positive way.

So, in fact, humans (creators of dogs) are perfectly capable of being wonderful dog owners, and your big old brush with which you tarred everyone is just facetious and lazy. Unfortunately, a lazy attitude is precisely what has Ireland in the state it's in, dog-overpopulation wise. We are known for being laissez-faire about our legal duties generally, no matter who or what suffers as a result of our devil-may-care attitude.. But this does not mean that every dog owner should be vilified, and there are mor egood dog owners out there than you seem to think.
But really, to come onto an animal forum such as this and tell the inherently responsible dog owners that they're not capable? I return to my initial comment that I suspect you came on here just to get yourself a nice big reaction.

DBB

I was going to do a big long post on the inconsistencies in this post and then touch on the fact there are over a million dogs suffering and killed each year due to humans and this number seems to be ok as collectivly we are not bad owners of dogs , I was also bring up the similarities with people who dont buy Nike or walk around in Nike what with the Karma issues involving child labour but as dog owners we choose to ignore etc....

But i decided to post on something that you are correct about below......

DBB wrote: »

Make no mistake... the domestication of ANY species is playing God. That is the simple reality. We choose which animals to breed, we choose which animals will not. That is how we domesticated all presently domesticated species.

and she chose to breed her dog just as humans have been doing all along.

But lets be clear about one thing here. By the fact you are allowed to own a dog you are excepting the fact that over a 10000 of these animals going to be put down every year and by walking your dog in public chances are you are going to drive up sales of these animals hence adding to this already high number.

DBB

Who is "she"? Edited: ok, I know what you mean now.

Your post must be one of the oddest I've ever read in this forum. The minute the word karma is mentioned, I'm gone. I'm mystified what the link is between owning a dog, and child welfare in Nike factories? How are these two things linked?
I want to ask you again dre, do you eat meat? Or eggs? Or fish? Or drink milk?

Sigma Force

On a mission to get preg..duh the dog was in heat, all dogs in heat are on a mission. What ignorant stupid, irresponsible owners. Spaying, secure fencing and adopting another dog or young pup would of had a better effect without adding to the unwanted puppy population.

Idiots.

ryan84

I think I am done listening to ray darcy. This moring I turned it on earlier than usual in the hope that I would hear them say something about responsable dog ownership.

Instead he told the story of the dogs again and how someone, on hearing the story, decided to get one of the pups. And how wasn't it great that their kids 'had an early christmas present'

I have text and emailed about it now. I really hope someone involved in animal rescue rings them and gets to talk on air.

gimmick

What is wrong with someone taking one of the pups as an early Christmas present? Not all Christmas dogs end up in the gutter. Maybe this one will not and end up having a great life in a lovely home?

gregers85

ryan84 wrote: »

I think I am done listening to ray darcy. This moring I turned it on earlier than usual in the hope that I would hear them say something about responsable dog ownership.

Instead he told the story of the dogs again and how someone, on hearing the story, decided to get one of the pups. And how wasn't it great that their kids 'had an early christmas present'

I have text and emailed about it now. I really hope someone involved in animal rescue rings them and gets to talk on air.

Ray Himself adopted one of the pups is it??

ISDW

Deleted User wrote: »

I was going to do a big long post on the inconsistencies in this post and then touch on the fact there are over a million dogs suffering and killed each year due to humans and this number seems to be ok as collectivly we are not bad owners of dogs , I was also bring up the similarities with people who dont buy Nike or walk around in Nike what with the Karma issues involving child labour but as dog owners we choose to ignore etc....

But i decided to post on something that you are correct about below......



and she chose to breed her dog just as humans have been doing all along.

But lets be clear about one thing here. By the fact you are allowed to own a dog you are excepting the fact that over a 10000 of these animals going to be put down every year and by walking your dog in public chances are you are going to drive up sales of these animals hence adding to this already high number.

I guess you mean accepting, not excepting? So by me being a responsible owner, exercising my dogs properly, I personally am responsible for thousands of dogs being killed?

OK, lets take your argument further than dogs. By people having children, and allowing them out of the house to play, or go to school, just by allowing them to be out in public, they are then encouraging others to also have children, thereby adding to the overpopulation of the planet and meaning that thousands of children in 3rd world countries are dying. So, for every child born in Ireland, at least one dies in africa.

Just to clarify for you, my dogs don't wear Nike or Adidas for that matter. Their collars, leads and harnesses come from people I know personally that manufacture them, adults, not children working in a sweatshop.

Sorry Dre, but your arguments don't make sense to me at all. You own a dog(s), so do you take responsibility for the dogs that are being mistreated and killed? Its a bit like people who think animals such as cows, pigs etc should stop being farmed. If that happened, it wouldn't mean we would have fields full of happy cows grazing, living long lives. It would mean that the vast majority of them would be slaughtered, but their meat wouldn't be used. I'm not sure if you are saying thats what should happen with dogs - they should all be killed now, and nobody have any in their lives to stop future dogs being killed?

fatmammycat

Also she didn't 'chose' to breed her dog, the dog apparently in a fit of 'depression' sought out a pregnancy. :rolleyes:

Priori

Perhaps not so bad in itself, but it would have been much more responsible had there been an advertisement from a volunteer from a charity like Dog Action Welfare Group looking to rehome their dogs, which is a far more deserving cause.

Let's hope that none of the puppies that were rehomed don't get abandoned post-Christmas...

Odysseus

I have been think on this one, I understand what people are saying she should be responsible for her pet, it should have been netured, it should not be able to wander. Again yes more should be done to address the amount of poor animals that are PTS.

However, is the main point here not that these pups will hopefully be saved from that? It would be nice to see it happen, but I doubt we will ever see a regular spot on a radio show to rehome those waiting to be PTS.

If that is not the case what am I missing, as I said the main thing for me would be those pups getting another chance, forget about the owner, hopefully she will cop on and this won't happen again.

planetX

Odysseus wrote: »

I have been think on this one, I understand what people are saying she should be responsible for her pet, it should have been netured, it should not be able to wander. Again yes more should be done to address the amount of poor animals that are PTS.

However, is the main point here not that these pups will hopefully be saved from that? It would be nice to see it happen, but I doubt we will ever see a regular spot on a radio show to rehome those waiting to be PTS.

If that is not the case what am I missing, as I said the main thing for me would be those pups getting another chance, forget about the owner, hopefully she will cop on and this won't happen again.

It's the message being sent out - that it's ok to project human emotions onto a dog and cause unwanted puppies to be born through neglect, and that nice radio listeners will help you home the puppies as little xmas presents for children. Each of her puppies has taken a home that a pup in the pound could have taken, and we are protected from the horrible truth that is the destruction of thousands of perfect dogs every year.

Odysseus

planetX wrote: »

It's the message being sent out - that it's ok to project human emotions onto a dog and cause unwanted puppies to be born through neglect, and that nice radio listeners will help you home the puppies as little xmas presents for children. Each of her puppies has taken a home that a pup in the pound could have taken, and we are protected from the horrible truth that is the destruction of thousands of perfect dogs every year.

I see and I agree, however, are we not faced with the fact that this person has six pups, they can either be PTS now, taken to a rescue [thereby taking up spaces] or find them homes?

Yes this person could do with a few lesson on pet care and responsiblity, but that can be said of a lot of dog owners here. Even with that I don't know if you can even get through to this type of person, I just see the positive of the second chance [for the pups] as the main thing.

planetX

Odysseus wrote: »

I see and I agree, however, are we not faced with the fact that this person has six pups, they can either be PTS now, taken to a rescue [thereby taking up spaces] or find them homes?

Yes this person could do with a few lesson on pet care and responsiblity, but that can be said of a lot of dog owners here. Even with that I don't know if you can even get through to this type of person, I just see the positive of the second chance [for the pups] as the main thing.

She should have to take them to a rescue and pay the surrender fee - or pay for euthansia, it's not cheap, that might get through to her. Why should she be helped by a national radio station, rather than people who put their own time and money and emotions into trying to make a small dent in the animal suffering created by other people.
They could at least offer to help her on the condition that she donates a certain amount to a dog charity

DBB

Odysseus wrote: »

I just see the positive of the second chance [for the pups] as the main thing.

There is no doubt that for these individual pups, as individuals, it is nice that they got homes: I can only hope the homes were screened, and that the owner is prepared to take them back if things don't work out... pups don't get handed back too often, it's when they untrained, loutish 1-2 year olds that they get surrendered, because nobody's bothered their butts doing a bit of training with them.
I also hope that their new owners will take care that the pups don't perpetuate the problem started by their mother's owner.

As with puppy farmed dogs, buying/adopting a dog because, sure doesn't it take them out of a bad situation, or sure, doesn't it take the problem out of the hands of the woman who was on t'wireless, is good for that individual dog (on paper anyway). But when you take a step back from it, there is no escaping the fact that buying/adopting such dogs is (a) taking a problem off the owner's hands, making them less likely to do anything pro-active to stop it happening again, and/or (b) perpetuating the misery of the broodstock.

There is a part of me that always winces a bit when a group of puppies hits the headlines like this... somehow, out of somewhere, a whole load of potential owners come out of the woodwork, clamouring to adopt one of these famous pups.
But... where were all these people before? Why weren't they quietly going to their local rescue to quietly adopt a dog that's in at least as much trouble?
Or do these cases which hit the media put an idea in peoples' heads that it might be nice to own a famous cutey fluffy puppy, and promote impulse adoption? There will always be genuine people taking such famous pups on of course, but I always fear that many of the poeple who come forward to adopt them are not doing it for the right reasons.

Odysseus

Cheers DDB, a very clear and concise post, there really is nothing written that that you could rationally argue against. I don't have a dog myself, I used to have english bulls when I was younger, but I have to forgo that pleasure at the moment as I'm not in a position to supply one with all the care and attention it would require.


Now back to the topic, it is not that I disagree with what most of the posters are saying, I don't. What I see from posters in this forum is an expression of the reality of how complex being responsible for a dog is. It is not a case of getting one, firing it out the back, going out to feed it once a day and maybe taking it for a walk now an then; or may more often if someone in the house is on a diet and it facilitates them to take the poor animal out for a walk.

I just don't know how realistic it is to expect the same form of committment from your average owner as the type of committment shown by members of this forum. I try to support a few reptile rescues and I have tried to look at this owner as if the where not pups but reptiles, and I come to the same conclusion that if once they were rescuedand went to decent homes that would be the main thing for me.

When I see certain threads it is often not the content I would disagree, if is often the approach taken; maybe it is just me, maybe it is the ways it is difficult to get tone across in posts, but the message is often expressed in a very judgemental way. Now just to be clear I'm no shinking violet, but attacking a person is not the best way of educating people.

People who post here, have clearly put much more time, money and committment into being a responsible pet owner, but the trick is how to pass on that information that people have to share; in a way that it will be heard.