Pet Debate

TL;DR What would you have done?

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:54:38 GMT

I work in a booth inside a building that houses many other things (a library, a ferry terminal, restaurants, etc). The booth that I sit in is surrounded by windows which means I can see a lot of what goes on around me. A month or two ago I noticed a woman who carries around a cat crate... with a cat in it... all the time. I don't know if she's homeless or not, but if she is she cares for herself (and also her cat) more than any of the other local homeless people do (there are a large number who frequent the area). She has this cat with her every day, and when she needs to come into the building she chains the cat carrier (which is also locked) to a secure place (a fence on my side of the building and a bike rack on the other side of the building).

The cat seems well fed (a bit more well fed than necessary, to be honest), appears healthy and pretty happy every time I see it. The woman and the cat are both clean and neat. At first I was concerned about the cat, but after seeing this woman regularly over the summer it doesn't appear to be in any danger.

That is, until I was coming home from work today and drove by the front part of the building... where I happened to see the crate's door broken off and hanging by the lock (from what I could tell the hinges had been broken) and then a few meters away a woman was walking away WITH THE CAT IN HER ARMS!!

Now, here is where the debate comes in. Was the cat stealing woman in the right, or in the wrong? Was this cat in danger or being abused, or was this woman sticking her nose in where she doesn't have all the facts and stealing an innocent woman's cat? What would YOU have done?

A little twist on going away...

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:50:58 GMT

If you were put in jail and you weren't sure how long you would be incarcerated for, what would you do with your pets?

The question has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt. You get put in jail and you don't know when you will be released (i.e. you get sentenced to several years with the option of parole in a few months). For argument's sake, you are the sole provider for your pet(s) and leaving them with your husband/wife/SO is not an option. Whatever you do, the pets probably can't stay in the home you were living at when arrested and jailed.

Honestly, I am not sure what I would do. I would probably ask my parents to take my cats and fish. But I am not sure about my dog. I have a friend who might be able to take the dog for me for a while, but I don't know for sure.

Just how many is too many?????

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:12:00 GMT

I know this has posted before but I sorta need some feedback too....

SO...we all agree that we love our animals...right?

And most of us, if given the ideal circumstances would have as many animals as we could care for...right?

SOOOOO....When in the real world is too many pets, TOO many pets????

I live in a suburban area of NE Ohio and apparently in my area there is no limit to how many pets you can have in your house. My parents and I have been in battle (as have our other neighbors) against our city inspectors/builders/officials for about 2yrs now.

You see...the house behind us houses many cats...and when I say many cats. I mean many cats. The only reason we as neighbors care is because the odor coming from the property is so severe that the neighbor on the right side of the 'cat house' cannot open his windows and we cannot use our backyard that butts up against their driveway because the odor is so bad. We have gone to everyone we can think of and nobody will do anything to help us. Not to mention, their un-vaccinated cats are in my yard...I have two dogs I don't need getting sick...

Recently, there was a small fire in the house. We happen to know the people working the fire and cleaning the house. The workers have also informed us that in certain parts of the home the feces has been about 2inches thick on the floor...the fleas and ticks are so bad that the workers could only work in certain parts of the house for short periods of time because the bites were so bad. They also told us while sorting clothing they found the skeletons of at least 2 dead cats buried in the clothing piles. The workers also informed us that there are at least **65** cats in the house....And that's not counting the 14 that the owners have at the home they are in until their home is done with repairs, nor is that counting the ones coming out of hiding in the basement rafters.

Now, the city sees nothing wrong with that because we have no law stating that you can't have that many pets...BUT they are not taken care of. There are 9 people in the house ages 6mths to 55yrs old and only one person is working. How can you possibly afford to feed the animals, care for them??? Not to mention...living in that type of conditions can't be healthy for people......

I love animals as much as the next person, but isn't that just too many??? The animals do not have enough litter boxes and go to the bathroom everywhere and anywhere....

And now because the cats cannot be in the house while the workers are there (because of the fumes, etc, etc)they are ***ALL*** housed inside a garage. The insurance adjuster will not board that many cats...the policy supports 2 dogs or 4 cats to board...that is all...So all the not fixed animals are all mixed together (you know that means more babies!).....

It's sad...the animals you can tell are fed, but you can tell they are not healthy...they have crusty eyes and noses..their coats look bad...and they just look unhappy. It's sad.

Nobody will seem to help. The city won't help...the humane society says there is nothing wrong...the health dept says there is nothing wrong...

So what says everyone? How many is too many??

I'm thinking the number in this case is tooooooo many....

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:21:16 GMT

Anyone here actually surprised at this article?

Dachshund top list of dogs most likely to bite

Apparently these are the three breeds of dog who exhibit the most aggressive behavior towards strangers:
1. Dachshund
2. Chihuahua
3. Jack Russell Terrier

I know it has been discussed from a different angle, but what do you think contributes most to the fact that these breeds are most likely to bite? Is it more that they were bred to be rat hunting dogs? Or is it that because they are small their owners let them get away with being rude? Does this research follow your personal experiences? Does it change your opinion about what kind of dog you may get the next time you choose a dog?

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:32:27 GMT

I don't think this one has been asked in a while so here it goes..

Do you feel there are any circumstances in which it's alright to purchase an animal (of any species) from a pet store or a backyard breeder?

And for a little extra spin on this question, have YOU ever purchased an animal from a pet store or a byb? Did you regret it? Would you ever do it again?

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:33:58 GMT

Prescription weight loss medication for dogs... Slentrol. No, I'm not joking.
http://www.slentrol.com/

Well I'm a bit shocked. I'm pretty sure I don't approve, especially since it works by blocking absorption of fats and if one uses it how the heck is one supposed to know if one's dog is still getting enough of the fat soluble nutrients it needs?

So... Slentrol, yes or no?

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:17:51 GMT

What, in your opinion, are behaviors or conditions (medical or otherwise) that make an animal "unadoptable" in your eyes, and something that should warrant humane euthanasia in a shelter or rescue situation, including what seems obvious, but also things people may disagree on?

For example, I was reading in a magazine an interview with John Katz, the author of A Good Dog and he expressed his opinion that "nippy" dogs should not be placed up for adoption. I personally don't consider a nippy dog something that warrants euthanasia so long as an appropriate home can be found.

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:20:00 GMT

I'm not sure if this has come up (I clicked back a ways and didn't see it) but what do you all think of the World's Ugliest Dog competition?

On the one hand, I guess it's nice that people love their dogs no matter what, but at the same time most of the dogs in the competition are deformed and most likely the result of bad breeding... :-\ Meh, I dunno. I feel bad for some of the dogs, they look like they're in pain, especially the ones with messed-up backs and such. Maybe I'm taking the issue too seriously. Opinions?

Here's an article for those who haven't heard of it: http://www.ktvu.com/news/16673959/detail.html

What would you do if you can save somebody's life?

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:06:03 GMT

Breed Misinformation in Shelters

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:03:03 GMT

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, I don't remember ever seeing it and it isn't on the front page of the community (unless I missed it somewhere).

How do you feel about rescues/shelters that claim their adoptables are one breed/mix when they are, in fact, a different breed/mix.

The most obvious here would be APBTs being passed off as boxer mixes or what have you. Our shelter calls them all staffordshire bull terrier mixes. It doesn't matter if the dog is EVEN a pit bull type, if it has a blocky head and short fur, it's a staffy bull. Not even Am staff, but staffy bull (and yes it does get annoying!).

Recently, however, my humane society had a dog who I stopped and looked at for a long while. Finally I asked a worker "is that a coyote?!" and she told me to SHHH that we don't talk about it. Apparently she came in with her sister and I would bet all of my money on the fact that this dog is some sort of coyote mix. The shelter was passing her off as a sheltie/lab mix. The dogs were sweet as sugar, and I'm really glad that both got adopted, but if I were getting a coyote/coyote mix, I think I would like to know about it, you know? I'm not sure how many wolf mixes end up in rescue, but I suppose the same would apply to them if they were being passed off as a separate breed.

Do you agree with this policy, that it doesn't -matter- what you call the breed, so long as it helps to get them adopted, or disagree?

Adoptable pets

Thu, 29 May 2008 22:40:13 GMT

For those of you that adopted a very manageable, cute, well-behaved (basically highly adoptable) pet, do you ever feel guilty that you did not adopt that older, shy, medical ridden pet that nobody wanted?

I have 2 street kitties and a shelter dog that were adoptions. They are all well behaved with no medical problems (Coffee cat is on a prescription food for struvite crystals though). They are not extremely adoptable because they are not all that pleasing to the eye to most people but are all very sweet and low maintenance. I have never felt a guilty day in my life for adopting healthy and good-temperamented animals, ever.

How about those of you that went to a reputable breeder? Do you guys ever feel guilty for purchasing a pet "while shelter animals die?" As so many people like to say. I too, have a cat from a reputable breeder as well and again, not a guilty day in my life for buying my Moo man.

stupid spouses

Thu, 29 May 2008 03:57:02 GMT

What would you do if your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband/SO came home with a Pit bull puppy that s/he paid $500 for from a BYB? There is also no way of getting your money back. This is exactly what happened to my co-worker and she was livid.

First off, I mentioned the breed because I think it is silly to buy a Pit bull puppy in my area, truly. There are literally homeless pit bull puppies and pit bull adults everywhere! They are the most popular breed in my area and the #1 breed euthanized in the local shelters.

So what would you do? My co-worker ended up keeping the dog and not 3 days after her husband bought his $500 Pit bull there was an owner relinquished parvo positive Pit bull puppy at our e-clinic that needed a home. ::sigh::

About the "bad breeds."

Mon, 19 May 2008 23:33:42 GMT

Have you ever not considered a breed of dog to own because you didn't want to deal with or felt like you weren't properly prepared to deal with the stigma associated to that breed? Why or why not?

unconditional love article...

Wed, 14 May 2008 19:45:03 GMT

want to share thoughts?

from the animal behavioral research newsletter

Dog Piece:
Unconditional Love From Dogs

We recently saw a comic strip that portrayed a dog being adopted from a shelter with the caption "Unconditional love - guaranteed." We've also heard the statement made in other contexts that dogs give "unconditional" love. When examined closely, this statement implies something about the nature of dogs that is an exaggeration at best and at worst, a myth. Such exaggerations can lead to unrealistic expectations from people who have dogs or those looking to adopt dogs. These unrealistic expectations can lead to frustration, unhappiness with the pet and sometimes, the dog being given up or euthanized. This is not in the best interests of pets or people.

The statement that dogs love unconditionally is an exaggeration for several reasons, one of which is that all dogs unconditionally "love" everyone - not just some people, but everyone. While it is true that dogs seem predisposed to form long-term relationships and develop strong bonds with people (what we'll call love), not all dogs "love" all people. The roughly 300,000 people that have to undergo medical treatment for dog bites every year will probably attest to that.

The factors that determine the strength of a bond between a dog and a person are not completely understood. We do know that the quality and quantity of interactions with people, especially when a dog is young, can influence his propensity to form strong bonds with people. Certainly the specific interactions the dog has with particular people can also influence his behavior towards them.

For example, a dog that has had some bad experiences with people threatening or frightening him, can be aggressive to people in certain circumstances. Such a dog may love his family, but not other people.

Even dogs that are strongly attached to their owners or other familiar people may not always be friendly to them. We have seen numerous cases of dogs that were very bonded to family members but would become aggressive around possessions or when disturbed when resting or sleeping.

The complexity of human-dog relationships certainly has parallels with human-human relationships. Even in the most loving of human relationships there are varying degrees of conflict. Some dogs are more aloof than others. Dogs that are not well socialized may be afraid of most folks or even aggressive to them.

The unfortunate implication of the phrase "unconditional love" is that a dog possessing this trait would never hurt anyone, never do anything to displease his owner, and would always be a dream companion. This just isn't true. There may be some dogs that do meet the needs and expectations of their owners, most of the time, but the old saying - you can't please all the people all the time - holds true for dogs as well.

Dominance

Fri, 02 May 2008 23:44:57 GMT

So, I think there's a general concensus here that alpha rolling is ridiculous (correct me if I'm wrong!). What about other methods claimed to prevent dominance, though? Is it risky to allow a dog to...

-Go through a doorway before you?
-Sleep in bed with you?
-Get on furniture (couches, etc) without permission?
-Stand taller than you?
-Growl or bark during play?
-Eat before you?
-Walk ahead of you on a leash?
-Win tug games against you?

I'm sure there's some I'm missing. Are disallowing these things valid ways to prevent dominance, or ineffective? Good for some dogs, not for all?

Easy Dog Breeds?

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:18:15 GMT

Do you feel there are dog breeds that are easier to live with and train than others?

If so, do you purposely pick "easy breeds" or "hard breeds" for your own household?

Would you have less admiration for someone who has miles of titles on her dogs if her dogs are "an easy breed" compared to another handler who works with "difficult breeds"?

Would you trust the opinion and experience of a trainer if you found she has only had "easy breeds" herself?

"Backyard Breeders"

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:19:30 GMT

Hey, new member here. Probably about to get my butt whipped...

What do you all think of so-called "backyard breeders"?

Let me clarify: I don't agree with people who say "Let's breed or dog/cat/rabbit/whatever because puppies/kittens/kits/whatevers will be cute!" but on the other hand I'm pretty sure people her would call what our family used to do "backyard breeding".

We had 5 rabbits, two male and three female. All well looked after and much loved pets. And we'd breed them to sell the babies.

Now, reasons why I think the term backyard breeders is unfair in this regard. These were not pure bred rabbits and we did not sell them to be, they were just pets. We normally had one litter from each female a year, I think, so there is no way they were over bred. We never sold the rabbits to people who wanted them on a whim. We did not aim to make money from them, all the money we made from selling them went back into housing and feeding the pets we had! We were not over producing babies, we were not selling ill babies, we did not sell them too young. We always separated the males from females so there was no chance of unexpected babies. We always told owners to get their rabbit checked out by the vet and vaccinated as soon as possible. We emphasised they needed looked after and played with every day.

We got a bit of a reputation for producing happy, healthy, very friendly rabbits around where I lived. There were six children in our family by that point and we used to play with the babies daily. This meant that by the time the babies were old enough to sell all they had to do was see a human approaching to try and climb through their cage to get to us! We had to be careful opening doors otherwise there would be a baby rabbit avalanche...

So, would you call us backyard breeders?

Adoption applications

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:42:53 GMT

Am I the only one here who feels like a lot of these application's entire purpose is to make people not want to adopt?

I'm not asking about the typical application where they want a vet reference and a home check. I'm talking about the ones where they ask about your employment/income, want to talk to your boss (!), want to call two non-family members (....), freak out if the vet records are in someone else's name (like your parents or spouse), the applications are five pages or more long ( typed, size 10 font, no double spaces D: ), will completely disregard your application no-questions-asked if you have kids, take weeks or months to process, etc...

I personally have seen both of my older siblings first try to adopt, and then eventually give up and turn to pet stores because the adoption agencies were "anal-retentive" and "pet nazis," as they intelligently said. They're not irresponsible pet owners, but they're both kind of lazy-- which wouldn't make them bad pet owners (or do you think it would?), it just makes them ones who aren't going to keep trying to adopt if things are made difficult for them and there's an easier option (like buying). I adopted my own dog from a private rescue, and I can say from my experience with it that I don't intend on doing it again.

So, what should the applications ask, and what do they not need to? Is it just fine and dandy for them to put potential adopter's lives under a microscope?

Sub-prime mortgages are killing man's best friend

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:54:34 GMT

Sad article about how the foreclosure problem is affecting a lot of household pets who are given up due to quick moves:
http://www.236.com/news/2008/04/10/subprime_mortgages_are_killing_5774.php

What do you guys think, what would you do in a situation like that?

Hybrid Fitness: Fact or Fiction?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:29:30 GMT

Pardon me if it's already been discussed here before, but I want to talk about whether mutts really are healthier than purebreds. My supervising teacher (I'm a student teacher) brought it up in class today and I had to say that they're not necessarily healthier, but we didn't really get into a debate about it.

I have a degree in Biology, so I am aware of the fact that genetic diversity is advantageous to communities of animals as they are better able to survive (those that carry the genes that can survive a drought carry the species through a major lack of rain over a period of years for example), but as far as I am concerned, a mutt is not healthier just by virtue of being a mutt. There are way more things going on in the background to make that kind of statement, imo.

What do you think?

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:19:07 GMT

You're moving 2,000 miles away from home to a tiny island fifteen miles away from the mainland. The only way to get off and onto the island is by a 75 minute ferry ride, which makes regular trips multiple times a day from 7AM to 3PM, or if you own your own boat. There is no veterinarian office on the island, but a clinic is held once a week. On the mainland, there are multiple vets and an after-hours emergency clinic.

Would you consider it to be irresponsible to own pets if you live on that island, because there's no regular vet access except once a week, and no emergency clinic? Keep in mind, you can make a trip to the mainland if you have an appointment to meet, but emergency care is another situation all together, especially after-hours.

If you would own pets in that situation, what would your emergency plan be like?

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:23:34 GMT

Would you, personally, own a pitbull? Why or why not?

(I'll post my own answer in the comments shortly.)

Westminster Hottie Rundown... that's right, I said it

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:21:46 GMT

Anyone seen this: http://www.236.com/news/2008/02/13/inappropriate_hottie_rundown_w_4348.php ?
Could be some wide cause for debate, I mean... it's a matter of opinion. But who knows what the canine feminist movement is going to do about all this. I realize the point of a dog show is to well, you know, show dogs, but there is in the inherent question of whether the dogs have the ability to keep their decency in a situation where everyone is ogling them for their fine body. It's really a form of prostitution in an industry where the object of desire has no chance to be informed of the implications and dissent.
Whatever man, Harley is definitely the hottest.

Remote training--the other kind.

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:22:27 GMT

I seem to be in the minority on this one.

Doolittler blog today has a post about trainers and behaviorists offering on-line consultations.

General consensus seems to be that this is a bad, stupid thing. I'm not so sure I agree (keeping in mind that I'm not talking of any particular trainer or beahviorist offering this service and whether or not I agree with their quality or training philosophy, just addressing the concept in a general way).

My comment is the first one after the blog entry, but I'll reprint it here.

While I totally agree that the lack of a regulating body in dog training and behavioral consultation is troubling and should be corrected, I think you've missed a key difference between dog training and veterinary practice: dog trainers usually don't train dogs. They train people to train dogs.

I recently had a behaviorist come visit my house to do a consult for us regarding one of our two dogs. She spent the vast majority of her time speaking with us, taking a full history, talking to us about our goals and gaging our current skill levels as dog handlers. She observed our two dogs interacting as we were talking, but there was nothing that she did that could not have been done via a video tape sent in of the day-to-day comings and goings of our dogs. We did some work while she was there, but her role was to guide what we were doing and give us feedback, not to actually handle the dogs herself. She never touched them except to pet them.

I have another friend who has been doing some obedience and behavior work with her dogs under the guidance of a trainer who she communicates with via email. In both her case and in my case, neither of us are dog novices by any stretch of the imagination, and I think it would be a different ball of wax if someone who was a complete and total dog newbie were to attempt a training relationship 100% remotely, but much of what dog trainers do doesn't require them to actually ever touch the dog.

I don't know anything about the trainer you mention, but there are still vast swaths of this country that have little to nothing to offer in the way of quality dog trainers or, even harder to find, qualified behaviorists. One of the reasons our dog is only now recieving the help he needs at the age of 8 is that we lived for most of his life in an extremely rural area where dogs were lucky to be let in to the house at night let alone receive any training or rehabilitation. Behavior rehab usually took place out back behind the shed. So anyone who can offer something, even if it's less than ideal, to people attempting to improve the lives of their dogs while living somewhere that would normally make in-person work impossible, more power to them.

What do you guys think?

Breeds and breeders.

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:28:26 GMT

This post brought to you by this post.

How do you feel about people breeding a breed of dogs (any breed) not recognized by a club?

From the post linked above, many people appear to be okay with it. However, you can probably argue that if that's the case, then people breeding Goldendoodles, Labradoodles, and other such "designer dogs" should be on the same level. But, of course, many people are against that as well.

What are your thoughts?