At what point do you impose your morals on others?

judgefudge · 30-12-2012 06:04PM

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 · 30-12-2012 06:16PM

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

bakergirl91 · 30-12-2012 07:18PM

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 · 30-12-2012 08:07PM

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 · 30-12-2012 08:29PM

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 · 30-12-2012 08:31PM

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 · 30-12-2012 08:38PM

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 · 30-12-2012 08:43PM

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

Salty · 30-12-2012 08:49PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:01PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:05PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:12PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:14PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:31PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:53PM

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 · 30-12-2012 09:55PM

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 · 30-12-2012 10:31PM

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 · 30-12-2012 11:16PM

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 · 30-12-2012 11:43PM

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 · 31-12-2012 02:17AM

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.

strandroad · 31-12-2012 02:26AM

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.

Some people are not OK with pound killings and so they support charities who take dogs out and foster them for adoption... Pound situation is far from ideal but it's a separate issue from pet cruelty in domestic situations and the community acceptance of it.

Roisy7 · 31-12-2012 12:47PM

Rosy Posy wrote: »

[/B] 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 imagine the method was not so pleasant but they were just born and couldn't see or walk.

When I was a kid we had zero cash but we neutered our pets because it was not fair to lets them keep having kittens that we couldn't keep. Most vets would rather neuter animals for a reduced fee than have more unwanted puppies/kittens roaming around the place. Lack of money IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

It's a very old-fashioned attitude to drown puppies/kittens and one that hopefully is dying out, but not quickly enough imo.

Do you know what's exactly entailed in drowning op? Have you ever swallowed water in a swimming pool? It's a horrible way to die, I'll present this link as evidence.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1992/ip920721.html

Just because the creatures aren't human and are at the very early stages of their development doesn't mean they don't feel pain. That's like saying a newborn baby doesn't feel pain- of course it does!

I hate the idea of shelters putting down healthy animals but at least they do it by lethal injection, which IS painless.

sambuka41 · 31-12-2012 01:04PM

I think you've got some great advice, your OH is a decent person, and you are too. It can be hard to break out of an accepted reality and see it for what it really is.

I would have serious concerns for the dog, but also if there are children involved? (I only say that as you mentioned 'family' in your first post) What are the children learning, anyone who can be that cruel to an animal, it isn't a million miles away from being cruel to children/ humans. I worked in child protection and there are cases where animal abuse was reported and from that more serious neglect of children was found, esp when you are dealing with an addiction.

So the moral issue here is more than the dog, as most people have said your OH feels an obligation to the dog, but there may be more concerns behind the scene.

castaway_lady · 31-12-2012 07:23PM

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.

So would I

castaway_lady · 31-12-2012 07:26PM

Id pay for the dog to be neutered. The greater good wins here over careless cruel eegits. Some people's morals are obviously superior to others and it's in the best interest for these to win out. You can get too philosophical here and lose sight of basic common decency. Jesus I hate these people just by reading your post.

Rosy Posy · 24-04-2013 11:00AM

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I need some more guidance on this issue. The dog is on heat again at the moment. They had her locked up but she escaped and went missing for a few days. Now she is back, most likely pregnant again. I haven't asked what will happen to the pups but if they plan to get rid of them the way they did the last time I have to do something. My options are:

a) do nothing. I feel that I can't do this. Others in the community have said that this is what they intend to do...its none of our business etc etc.

b) the straight up option: tell them if they don't care for the pups or get her fixed now (apparently the vet charges $20 extra if the animal is pregnant) I will report them and have the dog taken away. If they don't comply then report them. This is my instinct of what to do but my friend has begged me not to saying that they will never speak to me again and it will make things awkward for everyone in the community and for the children who are friends. Still I feel that I owe it to them to give them a chance to do the right thing.

c) the sly option. Anonymously report them. They lose the dog and wonder who reported them. Most likely think its our family as we are the only ones to have raised it with them in the past. What do I say if she asks me was it me? I'm a terrible liar. Also I have had a discussion with a mutual friend about it so it would most likely come out, resulting in the consequences of b) above except I haven't even given them the heads up.

d) the ultra-sly option. We have a friend who works for Animal Control. We could have them over and have it come up in conversation. I know that he would step in, then if they ask me I can just say that it came up casually over a few drinks, which is likely given his profession. It feels very manipulative and not quite right but might be the only way to ensure the right thing is done without becoming a social pariah.

Thoughts?

username123 · 24-04-2013 11:27AM

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Thoughts?

I advised you in the other thread, and earlier in this thread - disassociate yourself from these people.

I have to ask what compels you to continue being in contact with them, given the litany of complaints you have about them.

Rosy Posy · 24-04-2013 11:32AM

username123 wrote: »

I advised you in the other thread, and earlier in this thread - disassociate yourself from these people.

I have to ask what compels you to continue being in contact with them, given the litany of complaints you have about them.

The community and the children. Also I enjoy the woman's company and feel that she would be very different if it wasn't for her waste of space OH.

I have distanced myself to the point that we are civil and the kids spend time with each other but we hardly see each other except at events with mutual friends. I know they have a habit of dramatically breaking off contact with people who cross them and then bad mouthing them in the community. I have been begged by a mutual friend not to take a direct approach because it will make things awkward for everyone. I don't want it to be a case of 'well if you invite them then we're not coming'. I would like to put things right without creating drama.

ANXIOUS · 24-04-2013 11:36AM

Your an adult. Control the situation, get the dog bring it to the vet get it neutered. Why people come running to the Internet for answers when it's clear what you have to do amazes me.

keelanj69 · 24-04-2013 11:43AM

If its normal for the dog to go missing why not take it to get nuetered. Then after a few days recovery just leave the dog back out and no ones any the wiser. If you want to be sly that is.

At what point do you impose your morals on others?

Comments