At what point do you impose your morals on others?

Rosy Posy

A bit of background...

A family that we are friendly with have a dog who has gotten pregnant every time she has heat. She's not the greatest mother and the puppies have been a big stress on the family each time. With her last litter they put half the puppies in a sack and drowned them. When they had the litter before last they sold the puppies and made a few bob, which I gently suggested they use to get the dog neutered. Their argument is always that they are too strapped for cash. We are significantly better off than them.

Now my OH was over there and suggested that we pay for them to get the dog neutered. I feel that this was totally wrong of him as not only was he passing a moral judgement but that he was also in effect trying to pay his way to imposing his morals on them. Also I feel that he insulted them by highlighting the discrepancy in our relative finances.

My own principal is to allow people to make their own judgement, I can have my own opinion which I'll share, but I will ultimately respect how they want to conduct thimselves regardless of what I might do in their position.

Am I being overly analytical as my OH believes? Or is this genuinely insulting?

Lollipops23

I'd be reporting them for animal cruelty for drowning the puppies, personally. They clearly aren't up to looking after any pet.

looksee

I agree you should not pay to get the dog neutered. You choose to have a dog, you take on responsibility for it, feeding, vet bills etc. And it would be doing all you suggest for you to offer.

If there is anywhere local that will do neutering for a reduced rate though, you could suggest it.

Rosy Posy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'd be reporting them for animal cruelty for drowning the puppies, personally. They clearly aren't up to looking after any pet.

I had no idea that this was illegal. Tbh knowing this I think that should the situation arise again I will alert them to that fact and either suggest that I might report them or have the dog taken into care..

My main query was around the moral dilemma of offering to pay for the dog's op and how that would create a judgement of their moral and financial position.

Rosy Posy

[Quote/]If there is anywhere local that will do neutering for a reduced rate though, you could suggest it.[/Quote]
They were on a list for getting it done for free but when their number came up it was the wrong time in the dog's cycle. Then she got pregnant again before they could get in again.

Lollipops23

Rosy Posy wrote: »

They were on a list for getting it done for free but when their number came up it was the wrong time in the dog's cycle. Then she got pregnant again before they could get in again.

Are they just letting her run wild? If she's in their garden or with them on walks all the time, how is she getting pregnant?
Honestly I don't see the paying for the procedure as the issue, but how downright terribly the appear to treat their dog. Anonymously report them for cruelty (and yes, killing puppies by drowning them is cruel and illegal)

thepeachyone28

Thats carelessness on their part as well though, our dog isn't neutered but when she's in heat, we lock her in, take her out for walks with a lead and use anti mate spray. They need to cop on and take responsibility for their actions. In this case, I see no issue with what your boyfriend said, except the point is he shouldn't have to say anything!

Rosy Posy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Are they just letting her run wild? If she's in their garden or with them on walks all the time, how is she getting pregnant?
Honestly I don't see the paying for the procedure as the issue, but how downright terribly the appear to treat their dog. Anonymously report them for cruelty (and yes, killing puppies by drowning them is cruel and illegal)

They have a crappy low fence and a lot of locals let their dogs run wild so either she gets out or they get in. I don't think that there's any point in reporting them now as it was weeks ago. At the time I was uncomfortable with it and let them know my misgivings but as a libertarian and someone who would be pro choice I believe the decision is ultimately theirs. If the dog was left to rear her own pumps I would doubt if any would survive. They had to do a lot of supplementary feeding and care with the other litters.

Rosy Posy

thepeachyone28 wrote: »

Thats carelessness on their part as well though, our dog isn't neutered but when she's in heat, we lock her in, take her out for walks with a lead and use anti mate spray. They need to cop on and take responsibility for their actions. In this case, I see no issue with what your boyfriend said, except the point is he shouldn't have to say anything!

I agree they are not the most responsible dog owners. The dog was bought for older kids who only live with them part time and were supposed to be responsible for her care. They have a lot of other sh!t on their plate and the dog issue seems to get pushed aside. I'm really clear on how I should proceed if the situation should recur but my main concern atm is whether it was wrong/insulting to offer to pay for the dog's op.

krankykitty

Rosy Posy wrote: »

They have a crappy low fence and a lot of locals let their dogs run wild so either she gets out or they get in. I don't think that there's any point in reporting them now as it was weeks ago. At the time I was uncomfortable with it and let them know my misgivings but as a libertarian and someone who would be pro choice I believe the decision is ultimately theirs. If the dog was left to rear her own pumps I would doubt if any would survive. They had to do a lot of supplementary feeding and care with the other litters.

In most cases I agree that people should make their own choices, however in a case like this where animals have been treated cruelly, I don't think I could stand by and say nothing. If someone you knew was exercising their free will to be cruel to a child, would that be acceptable as "their choice"?

R.D. aka MR.D

Did they seem insulted by your husbands offer?

Rosy Posy

krankykitty wrote: »

In most cases I agree that people should make their own choices, however in a case like this where animals have been treated cruelly, I don't think I could stand by and say nothing. If someone you knew was exercising their free will to be cruel to a child, would that be acceptable as "their choice"?

Tbh I viewed it as as much of a pro choice issue as abortion as in I personally would never abort a child but feel that I have no right to impose my morals on others . We discussed it before the pumps were born and I told her that I thought it was cruel and her response was that should all of the dog's live then they would have a crappy life and little chance of survival while their mother had so little chance interest in caring for them. By killing some she felt that she was giving some a chance. At the same time I know that at least some of the decision rested on the extra work that all those dogs would bring over the already busy Christmas period.

Rosy Posy

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

Did they seem insulted by your husbands offer?

They turned it down and seemed somewhat shame faced. I felt horrible, like we were judging them for being callous and trying to buy our way into imposing our morals on them.

krankykitty

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Tbh I viewed it as as much of a pro choice issue as abortion as in I personally would never abort a child but feel that I have no right to impose my morals on others . We discussed it before the pumps were born and I told her that I thought it was cruel and her response was that should all of the dog's live then they would have a crappy life and little chance of survival while their mother had so little chance interest in caring for them. By killing some she felt that she was giving some a chance. At the same time I know that at least some of the decision rested on the extra work that all those dogs would bring over the already busy Christmas period.

When you shared your opinion with your mother that you felt that it was cruel, did you feel that it was imposing your morals on her? Perhaps your OH was trying to do the same thing (share his concerns) but maybe trying to be practical about it by offering actual help to your mum with the problem she has with the dog?

I hear what you're saying about "pro choice", I am pro choice myself (and wouldn't tell anyone else what to do) but I think I would certainly have to share my concerns if I thought a person or animal was at risk. I don't think that really takes away from the pro-choice stance, as at the end of the day the person is free to choose what they do.

I wonder is the dilemma you are feeling more related to the fact that your OH isn't officially "family" in the same way that you are - you know how often family members will bitch and moan about each other, but if an "outsider", even one who is married into the family does the same, it's natural to sometimes feel a bit defensive, and like they're getting involved in stuff that isn't their business? Families can be tricky to negotiate sometimes

Lollipops23

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Tbh I viewed it as as much of a pro choice issue as abortion as in I personally would never abort a child but feel that I have no right to impose my morals on others . We discussed it before the pumps were born and I told her that I thought it was cruel and her response was that should all of the dog's live then they would have a crappy life and little chance of survival while their mother had so little chance interest in caring for them. By killing some she felt that she was giving some a chance. At the same time I know that at least some of the decision rested on the extra work that all those dogs would bring over the already busy Christmas period.

They didn't administer a termination on the dog, the allowed her to gestate, give birth and then drowned her pups. It's not the same as abortion. That's insanity, sorry (IMO).

What they did is illegal and they're refusal to do anything about their situation (ie, if they can't afford neutering her, fixing the goddamn fence so she won't get knocked up again) is the problem. They probably won't accept a kind offer of help, as they clearly don't give a hoot about their dog and her welfare.

This really isn't a moral issue though, it's been agreed that the dog shouldn't be having puppies. The money is the issue and that's not imposing your morals on someone, that's offering to give someone a hand in doing what needs to be done.

If your parents are insulted then they're over-reacting. They've been incredibly irresponsible and they're being offered a solution to the puppy situation, they should be grateful.

Rosy Posy

krankykitty wrote: »

When you shared your opinion with your mother that you felt that it was cruel, did you feel that it was imposing your morals on her? Perhaps your OH was trying to do the same thing (share his concerns) but maybe trying to be practical about it by offering actual help to your mum with the problem she has with the dog?

I hear what you're saying about "pro choice", I am pro choice myself (and wouldn't tell anyone else what to do) but I think I would certainly have to share my concerns if I thought a person or animal was at risk. I don't think that really takes away from the pro-choice stance, as at the end of the day the person is free to choose what they do.

I wonder is the dilemma you are feeling more related to the fact that your OH isn't officially "family" in the same way that you are - you know how often family members will bitch and moan about each other, but if an "outsider", even one who is married into the family does the same, it's natural to sometimes feel a bit defensive, and like they're getting involved in stuff that isn't their business? Families can be tricky to negotiate sometimes

They aren't my family- they're another family who we are friendly with who have kids in our kids classes. Neither of us have family support so we rely on each other quite a lot.

When I shared my concerns with her I made the distinction between my morals ie what I would do in her position, and actually saying 'this is what you should do because it's the one right thing to do'. We had a discussion about it where she gave her take on the situation and even tho I didn't like it I accepted that she was the one who would be responsible for caring for their third litter of puppies this year and that the decision was ultimately hers to make and that I should have no right to throw some cash at you to make you change your moral stance to mine.

I felt that when my OH offered to pay for the dog's op it was as if he was saying "I'm going to pay you off to do the right thing because you're too poor and don't know any better."

Morag

If you think what they are doing is cruel, then why not contact the http://www.ispca.ie/ and see if they can get someone to come out and talk to to them about it.

krankykitty

Apologies I didn't read the first post properly obviously, thought it was your family.

I don't personally see it as throwing cash at the problem, or an implication that they were too poor to know better. Is it similar to a friend confiding in you that they were in lots of pain with their teeth but decided not to go to the dentist... Would you ask if cash was the issue, and if so that you'd help?

I think this is more of a dilemma as what this person has done (and will probably do in the future if the mother dog isn't neutered or controlled) is actually illegal (I think?) and if not illegal then cruel. Personally I would not care about someone thinking I thought they didn't "know any better" in a situation like this, because they in fact DON'T know any better if they think it is OK to let this situation continue. And I'm being kind here by saying ignorance is the cause, because the alternative is much worse (just simply cruel).

Stavro Mueller

I don't consider this to be your OH imposing his morals on them. It's a wake-up call to them for not being responsible citizens and pet owners.

Rosy Posy

krankykitty wrote: »

Apologies I didn't read the first post properly obviously, thought it was your family.

I don't personally see it as throwing cash at the problem, or an implication that they were too poor to know better. Is it similar to a friend confiding in you that they were in lots of pain with their teeth but decided not to go to the dentist... Would you ask if cash was the issue, and if so that you'd help?

I think this is more of a dilemma as what this person has done (and will probably do in the future if the mother dog isn't neutered or controlled) is actually illegal (I think?) and if not illegal then cruel. Personally I would not care about someone thinking I thought they didn't "know any better" in a situation like this, because they in fact DON'T know any better if they think it is OK to let this situation continue. And I'm being kind here by saying ignorance is the cause, because the alternative is much worse (just simply cruel).

I think that they recognise that they need to do something about it but they have way bigger personal and financial stresses on them. To me it seems odd to say have this cash to get your dog fixed but not to do the same when they're getting food parcels or can't pay their rent or bills. And I'm not keen to start supporting them entirely. That was why I brought it up when they sold the previous litter.

Just looked it up and it is in fact illegal which emboldens me to be firmer should this happen again. In terms of cruelty, she justified it to me by saying that it was putting them out of their misery since they couldn't be properly cared for. My own attitude would be that they should have considered this before the dog got pregnant and that once she had, they had a responsibility to care for the pups; but she had a different view, so beyond that how much can you do? I felt that my Oh went to far by offering to pay as it was like we already had it out, we had a different moral standpoint but that he was just trying to get his way by offering them the cash. He did say that he didn't give a toss if they were insulted that his concern was for the welfare of the dog.

Lollipops23

Rosy Posy wrote: »

He did say that he didn't give a toss if they were insulted that his concern was for the welfare of the dog.

I completely understand his viewpoint to be honest- I wouldn't have been so polite about it to be honest.

They could have dropped the pups into a shelter, people do it all the time. They don't care about those dogs, no human being could do that to the pups if they had ANY other option availabe to them.

I'm sorry, I simply can't get my head around this sort of behaviour. I couldn't be friends with people who did this to their pet (and before you think I'm one of those people who cherish pets over humans, I don't even have any as I'm extremely allergic!).

Rosy Posy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I completely understand his viewpoint to be honest- I wouldn't have been so polite about it to be honest.

They could have dropped the pups into a shelter, people do it all the time. They don't care about those dogs, no human being could do that to the pups if they had ANY other option availabe to them.

I'm sorry, I simply can't get my head around this sort of behaviour. I couldn't be friends with people who did this to their pet (and before you think I'm one of those people who cherish pets over humans, I don't even have any as I'm extremely allergic!).

I was under the impression that the dogs had to be 6-10 weeks before they could leave their mother? It did fairly sicken me but what she said was that they couldn't even open their eyes or walk so it was no different to an abortion, and if they had gone to a shelter they would most likely have been put down anyway. I don't think they did it as a senseless thing, they honestly thought it was the best option.

Neyite

cymbaline wrote: »

I don't consider this to be your OH imposing his morals on them. It's a wake-up call to them for not being responsible citizens and pet owners.

I would agree with this. I think by offering to pay, your husband might have drawing their attention to the fact that outsiders can see they are behaving irresponsibly with their pet and might correct their behaviour. I don't see it as imposing morals on them at all, just showing that others have a different perspective on the issue.

I'm not a dog lover, but I believe that if you have a pet that relies on you for their health and well-being, you owe it to them to be a responsible owner. If offering to pay for neutering embarrasses them into being a bit more responsible toward their pet then that's good in my opinion.

Rosy Posy

Neyite wrote: »

I would agree with this. I think by offering to pay, your husband might have drawing their attention to the fact that outsiders can see they are behaving irresponsibly with their pet and might correct their behaviour. I don't see it as imposing morals on them at all, just showing that others have a different perspective on the issue.

I'm not a dog lover, but I believe that if you have a pet that relies on you for their health and well-being, you owe it to them to be a responsible owner. If offering to pay for neutering embarrasses them into being a bit more responsible toward their pet then that's good in my opinion.

That's almost word for word what my OH said! I'm not sure that it's going to do much more than make them think that we're condescending and judgemental I'm afraid. They've got way more on their plate atm.

Stavro Mueller

That's no excuse :mad: Is it really that big a deal to take the dog to the vet to be neutered? Especially when the alternative is having a bitch in heat around the place and having to drown puppies. If you are on certain state benefits, you can get an animal neutered at a much reduced rate.

Drumpot

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I completely understand his viewpoint to be honest- I wouldn't have been so polite about it to be honest.

They could have dropped the pups into a shelter, people do it all the time. They don't care about those dogs, no human being could do that to the pups if they had ANY other option availabe to them.

I'm sorry, I simply can't get my head around this sort of behaviour. I couldn't be friends with people who did this to their pet (and before you think I'm one of those people who cherish pets over humans, I don't even have any as I'm extremely allergic!).

I'm with you on this. The laws in this country are pathetic when it comes to the welfare of pets and people's ignorance is equally annoying.

If you have a pet that you can't afford to give proper care then you should at least try to find an alternative home, including contacting animal shelters. People are just selfish and give no consideration to their pets, like these animals are alive only for human pleasure with no responsibility on humans to show any care for them.

In truth I find the responses to this post very reserved. I'm not a big animal rights activist but you shouldn't have to be to see that drowning puppies because you couldn't be arsed finding alternative arrangements that have nothing to do with money, is just cruel at best.

Incidentally I don't see why anybody should feel uncomfortable highlighting something they feel strongly about. Saying how you feel about something does not mean you are shoving your morals down somebody else's throat. If one of my friends or family was drowning puppies I would let them know what I think. They have a right to do what they want in this regard and I have a right to let them know how it offends me. They can choose to continue their actions or not and I can choose how to respond in terms of valuing that person.

If people don't speak up about how they feel about things that are important to them then they aren't being the person they are. Unfortunately modern society is all about showing more sensitivity to others feelings as opposed to practising open honesty and expressing your own views.

Drumpot

Rosy Posy wrote: »

That's almost word for word what my OH said! I'm not sure that it's going to do much more than make them think that we're condescending and judgemental I'm afraid. They've got way more on their plate atm.

That's no excuse. If they have so much on their plate then they should find a home or shelter for the pet where it can at least be treated with more care.

I have pets and seldom have two bob to rub together but I look after the pets like I would my children. They are part of my family and just as importantly my responsibility. Either the dog is part of your friends family and they just don't treat each other well or it's just a mod con they can't afford to take care of in which case they should at least make an effort to find a more suitable home.

deisemum

Lollipops23 wrote: »

They didn't administer a termination on the dog, the allowed her to gestate, give birth and then drowned her pups. It's not the same as abortion. That's insanity, sorry (IMO).

What they did is illegal and they're refusal to do anything about their situation (ie, if they can't afford neutering her, fixing the goddamn fence so she won't get knocked up again) is the problem. They probably won't accept a kind offer of help, as they clearly don't give a hoot about their dog and her welfare.

+1, No way is it comparable to abortion, it's comparable to letting a mother give birth, have the baby put in a sack and drowning it. Wrong.

It's animal cruelty and should be reported. I'm with your husband on this but I'd have been more vocal in expressing my disgust at drowning the pups but OP I get the feeling you're more interested in being the one in the "right" over your husband.

Toast4532

deisemum wrote: »

It's animal cruelty and should be reported. I'm with your husband on this but I'd have been more vocal in expressing my disgust at drowning the pups but OP I get the feeling you're more interested in being the one in the "right" over your husband.

I agree 100%.

These people don't deserve to have any pets, dogs or otherwise. They are not fit to be pet owners.

I cannot believe you know they drowned puppies and haven't reported them, the behaviour of those people is cruel and disgusting, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I hope they are reported and every animal they have is taken off they.

If you cannot look after or afford to look after pets properly you shouldn't have any end of.

If you had kids and couldn't look after them properly, they would probably be taken off you, animals should be no different, they are as much a part of the family as children are.

username123

This thread is really disgusting.

I cannot understand the actions of scum who would mindlessly drown puppies, continue to allow their dog to breed, allowing more puppies to be born to drown. These people are mentally disturbed to behave this way.

And I cannot understand the actions of the OP for not reporting people when she knows they are doing this.

The entire thread is sickening and a sad reflection of the disgusting lack of basic humanity in many people.

It is absolutely not comparable to abortion, I cannot believe that someone is even making that comparison. It is animal cruelty and gross irresponsibility.

I wouldnt be able to have people like this in my life as friends. Truly vile individuals.

judgefudge

I think your husband was right in what he said. It was not "imposing your morals" on them, since you have said the only reason they have not neutered the dog is that they don't have the money.

Your husband is obviously not comfortable with the situation and feels sorry for the dog, and quite rightly. If he wants to offer to put to pay to end this cruelty I would see that as only a good thing.

If the dog gets pregnant again report them.

judgefudge

Also the last thing you should be worrying about is whether they found it rude or embarrassing. They should be ashamed of themselves.

bakergirl91

I totally agree with everyone else above, your OH did the right thing. I strongly advise you to report them. What horrid horrid people. He was not pushing his morals, if anything he was helping them to open their eyes to what needs to be done. They should not own or be allowed to have animals putting them through so much suffering..... how truly upsettng. I would have done the same thing as your partner and reported them, cruelty to animals should not be tolerated, on the same level as that of cruelty to children in my opinion. Good on your partner!

TheminxIRL

If it puts this poor animal and any potential pups out of their misery then sod your morals.

I commend your oh for standing up for what is right and not worrying about offending people.

I think you need to get off your high horse and support him, whats happening is beyond cruel

Rosy Posy

I have to say that the impassioned responses to this thread surprise me somewhat. I know it is easier to pass judgement on an internet forum than in real life. Of everyone in our community we are the only ones afaik to have made our reservations known to them. I have heard one friend who is a dog owner sound off about it but the majority of people while they find it distasteful a accept her point that they couldn't care for all of the pups by getting rid of half of them the others would have a better chance of survival. I just wonder that the overwhelming majority of people on here would report them in an instant yet no one in our real life community would even express their disapproval. I can't believe that the boards community is that much more moral. Do people feel so passionate about the thousands of dogs who are put down by animal shelters because they can't be cared for?

In saying this I have resolved to make a stand should the situation arise again.

As far as my wanting to be in the right over my OH, my concern here was that we had already had the discussion around birth control for the dog and they defended their position, by him offering to pay for the dogs op I felt that he was effectively trying to give them cash to change their minds.

Valentina

OP if they are really strapped for cash, charities like the Blue Cross will neuter pets at a reduced rate.

Actually given the case history here I wouldn't be surprised if a local vet offered the same service.

What's happening to that dog and pups is absolutely sickening.

judgefudge

OP, you say they defended their decision not to neuter the dog? What did they say?

Apart from the fact that they can't afford it, you have put forth no other reason as to why they won't neuter the dog. Your husband offering money was therefore not to change their mind, but to help their situation? Unless I'm picking things up wrong.

I know it's easy to sit back and say report them, but I can hand on heart say that if I knew somebody who was allowing this kind of situation I would report them, or offer to get the dog fixed, or go to a dog shelter and see what the options are.

You just seem to want somebody to say you're right, you should stay out of their business. But in this scenario I think your husband was in the right. Sorry.

deisemum

I'd have no problem reporting animal cruelty and have done so in the past.

Salty

Sorry OP, but your husband is absolutely in the right here. It is cruel what is happening to that poor dog, and if your friends really cared about it's welfare, they would neuter it, or try and re-home it. And drowning puppies is a complete disgrace. Whatever about their views, could they not have given the pups to a shelter? They would have been able to rear the pups to the point that they could be re-homed.

And with regard to this:

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Do people feel so passionate about the thousands of dogs who are put down by animal shelters because they can't be cared for?

Animals put down in shelters are put down humanely, not shoved in a sack and drowned. No comparison.:mad:

username123

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I just wonder that the overwhelming majority of people on here would report them in an instant yet no one in our real life community would even express their disapproval. I can't believe that the boards community is that much more moral. Do people feel so passionate about the thousands of dogs who are put down by animal shelters because they can't be cared for?

I dont know what kind of community you live in but I genuinely do not know anyone (that I am aware of) who would think that drowning dogs is an ok thing to be doing. Its totally sick. Whatever about reporting them (may cause difficulties in a small community), I certainly would not associate myself with people who would do this. What kind of people would do something like this?

There is a huge difference between animals being humanely put down and drowning puppies.

Rosy Posy

judgefudge wrote: »

OP, you say they defended their decision not to neuter the dog? What did they say?

Apart from the fact that they can't afford it, you have put forth no other reason as to why they won't neuter the dog. Your husband offering money was therefore not to change their mind, but to help their situation? Unless I'm picking things up wrong.

I know it's easy to sit back and say report them, but I can hand on heart say that if I knew somebody who was allowing this kind of situation I would report them, or offer to get the dog fixed, or go to a dog shelter and see what the options are.

You just seem to want somebody to say you're right, you should stay out of their business. But in this scenario I think your husband was in the right. Sorry.

They defended their decision to drown the pups. They agree that she should be neutered and had looked into getting this done for free but apparently when it was the wrong time in the dogs cycle and then she got pregnant again. So afaik they do intend to get it done. Just knowing how many stresses they have in their lives it is not high on their priorities.

Tbh the responses in this thread have made me rethink my attitude to what my OH said. I think that my sensitivity about not highlighting the difference in our financial situation has clouded my judgement in the issue. I think a part of me is afraid that they will think we're putting ourselves above them morally because we have more money than them. But really the main concern here should be the animal welfare one.

I am still curious as to how people on here feel about animals being routinely put down by the ispca and similar and how this differs so radically from what has happened here. I imagine the method was not so pleasant but they were just born and couldn't see or walk.

judgefudge

I think the difference is that this situation is preventable. Animals are routinely put down in shelters because there are unfortunately so many strays, but it's done in a humane way. To kill puppies through drowning them, when the situation could have been prevented, is just not the same thing... In my opinion.

Salty

Rosy Posy wrote: »

They defended their decision to drown the pups. They agree that she should be neutered and had looked into getting this done for free but apparently when it was the wrong time in the dogs cycle and then she got pregnant again. So afaik they do intend to get it done. Just knowing how many stresses they have in their lives it is not high on their priorities.

Tbh the responses in this thread have made me rethink my attitude to what my OH said. I think that my sensitivity about not highlighting the difference in our financial situation has clouded my judgement in the issue. I think a part of me is afraid that they will think we're putting ourselves above them morally because we have more money than them. But really the main concern here should be the animal welfare one.

I am still curious as to how people on here feel about animals being routinely put down by the ispca and similar and how this differs so radically from what has happened here. I imagine the method was not so pleasant but they were just born and couldn't see or walk.

It's good that you can see the sense in the response here OP, the welfare of that dog is a very important issue in your situation! As I mentioned in my previous post, and others have also, animals being put down in shelters is radically different to them being drowned. And so what if they were just born and couldn't see or walk? They could still feel, and I imagine the sensation of being suffocated is not a very pleasant one.

username123

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I am still curious as to how people on here feel about animals being routinely put down by the ispca and similar and how this differs so radically from what has happened here. I imagine the method was not so pleasant but they were just born and couldn't see or walk.

Animals end up in shelters for a variety of reasons and while as many try to rehome as they can, sometimes they have to humanely put them down. Its not nice, and I dont think anyone is happy about it, but its an option of last resort and when done, its humane.

These people ended up with puppies through their own irresponsibility and didnt even choose to give them to a shelter, try to rehome them, or find a humane way of dealing with the situation (like paying a vet to put them to sleep). Instead they drowned them. How can you not see that what they did is sick and cruel and totally different to what goes on in shelters? Its a lazy, disgusting, abhorrant way to deal with a problem that they themselves engineered. The kind of people who would do this have something wrong with them, mentally, emotionally, a lack of empathy, a complete disregard for normal human behaviour. The only way I can understand that people would do this is that they lack the intelligence or capability (through mental illness or addiction issues or something) to do the right thing.

Daisy M

I am amazed that so many people seemingly know about this but no one reported them. I have never heard of anyone I know doing this sort of thing.

There is no way I could continue to be friends with some one who could put a living animal in a sack and throw it in water to kill it. At least if they went to the ispca there would be some hope of rehoming the animals and if they were put down it would be done humanely and they wouldnt suffer the pain that they did when drownded.

I am not a huge pet lover, we have a dog and while he is a lovely pet he is not my child so its not like I am biased. We also have 2 cats, one a stray which adopted us and one given to my daughter as a birthday gift, I hate them both:o but there is no way I could hurt them. These people sound horrible and that they show no remorse is worse. The question to me would not be if I would pay or not but how I would end the friendship.

Rosy Posy

username123 wrote: »

addiction issues

This.

This thread has been a real eye opener in terms of what's going on with this family and our community. At first I was surprised by the strength of response but when I look at it I agree with the majority of posters. I've come to realise that this is just one of many moral issues that I and I suppose many others in the community would have and they all seem to stem from the husband's addictions and their resultant poverty. I think that it starts with little things, like him doing cash work when they're on full benefit. No one's going to begrudge them the extra cash when they're so strapped. But gradually it escalates to them having a separate code of what's acceptable and what's not.

MistyCheese

I don't understand the moral issue here. You're asking if it's immoral to offer to pay for the dog to be spayed? I would find it a better option than standing back and allowing a bag of puppies to be drowned. After reading the first paragraph I was saying to myself that I'd send them the money to have the dog neutered if it meant half a litter of puppies weren't killed.

If someone took the dog off to the vet behind the owners back then there would be an issue but I don't see any issue with simply offering to pay. They claim to not have had the dog neutered because of money so no-one suggested it to them, they said it themselves.

username123

Rosy Posy wrote: »

This.

Yeah no surprises there. To be honest, youd be doing them a favour to report them for animal cruelty. The whole community is just enabling this persons addiction problems and normalising behaviour that is wrong. A reality check is needed.

keithclancy

Your question is at what point do you impose your morals on others.

Answer:

You report these people, the fact that they didn't know any better suggests that they will do it again.

Its animal cruelty of the highest order and IMO absolutely disgusting behavior from a human being. No doubt these people have the dog to act as a house alarm or something.

Dog should be taken from them and re-homed, its just going to happen again.

P.S. Contrary to popular belief, not all dogs are put down when rescued / strays. Theres organisation out there that take care of them and find them new homes.

DAWG for example:
http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/

They find foster homes for dogs until they can find a forever home.

Honestly this thread has made me angry, no animal deserves to be treated in that way, I mean stuck in a plastic bag and immersed in water.

If it were me i'd tell them directly what they should do and what the consequences would be if they didn't, relationship be damned.

But thats just me, up to you OP.

thefeatheredcat

I'm familiar with the Trap, Neuter, Release / Return approach to dealing with feral cats... who do it all for free. A place I used to live in, the area was often over run with wild cats who would have plenty of litters. My then neighbour, a fan of pets, was the one who organised it for various wild cats to be neutered.

While we may not be talking about feral cats in a housing estate we are talking about a family pet whose health and well being should come ahead of cost. Is there a similar service for dogs? Perhaps it is worth chatting with various groups like ISPCA who could offer these services for free.

As to the question, at what point do you impose your morals on others, I think the only thing wrong your husband did is not talk to you about what he felt first and his suggestion, which personally I would feel the same about because that point is the point you come to when you just cannot stand to see it happen again and again without taking the dog's health into consideration and any impact it would have on her and the unnecessary measures of action that burdens others. I couldn't stand by knowing the dog is left popping out puppies as though she is on a puppy farm, puppies being drowned and the owners being totally irresponsible. I wouldn't say I know much about dogs, every dog like every cat I had was a stray that we took in and looked after, neutering included in with financial difficulties.

I do think what they are doing is cruel and wrong and I wouldn't hesitate to point this out to them either, to even offer for the health of the dog and its safety... and to be honest I would go one step further and buy the dog off them myself, because if they can't afford neutering it, how on earth can they afford to feed it or feed the puppies? I was watching I think it is The Zoo or something, on RTE (I think it was just on Friday or Saturday) about the before and after look back at stories and they showed how on an average normal housing estate, a neighbour had called in a case of neglect of a dog who turned out to be nothing more than skin and bone, developing ulcers and having bitten her tail out of desperation. The owner, caught on camera arriving to the house was compassionately confronted and talked with and it turned out they had a difficult personal life and financial circumstances. They actually did mention that the person who called in the report of neglect did the right thing both for the owner (who was in desperation of the situation) and the dog who was needlessly suffering as a direct consequence of whatever was going on behind the closed door and in bank accounts. (edit: it was a happy ending for the dog, who was nursed back to health and fostered and homed)

If they are unable to afford neutering the dog and that is the excuse, that they can't afford it then I don't think they are capable of looking after it properly and I would be very, very, very sceptical of them being able to afford proper food and take proper care. I'd personally report them and give the dog a better chance of a new home or see to it myself that the dog gets the home it deserves.

I get the feeling there's a lot more to this behind the scenes with them... they say they agree to getting the dog neutered, they say they have looked into getting it done for free........ yet........ where's the follow up? Sounds like the dog will be having another batch of unwanted pups again that either will get abandoned somewhere and be someone else's problem, or will sell them and make some money off what could be a misery for the dog in question, or have them in the back of the car off to the UK in all sorts of states as reported recently.

They don't sound too concerned and aren't really that interested in the welfare of the dog, or the pups. Just more interested in not doing anything about it because it suits their attitude to do so and they see no problem in letting it continue. Lack of money isn't the issue, it's the excuse, and I would say that more than likely there's something more behind it like giving over the personal details or dog licences or perhaps being caught for animal cruelty before. There simply isn't an excuse anymore if it can be done for free.

I don't think it's wrong to offer to pay for the dog to be neutered, I do think it's wrong to turn a blind eye to abuse and to accept their assurances but knowing that without doubt that dog will be having another batch of unwanted puppies and the dog's health possibly put in jeopardy.