This just makes me sick.
- Thread starter Kimbers
- Start date
I'm going off what the OP wrote...taking her word for it. Of course, we don't have first hand information or facts. Is it true the man is letting multiple cats breed out of control? If so, then that is even more an indication to me that the story could be legit. Theoretically, if what she wrote is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then in that case, I think it's awful and disgusting that the dog was shot and killed. It really doesn't matter if I have all the facts because in my post here, I'm going to go on the theory or the premise that this kind of thing is done, even if it's not this particular person.
This dog could have made a wonderful dog for someone else. Taking a dog to certain shelters does not necessarily equal long, miserable stays. If it does, then yes, that's not humane. Like it was mentioned, taking the time and expense to put an add in the paper or looking for someone for whom this dog would make a good pet would be the responsible thing to do. Once you decide to get a dog, then I believe the ONLY moral thing to do is to do everything possible to make sure that dog has a nice, long, happy and healthy life, even if you don't want to keep it yourself forever. I think dumping a dog off on someone else because it's "rowdy" is reprehensible, as do I think of so many of the other excuses we see all the time. ie: Having a baby, can't keep the dog, moving to a new house, can't keep the dog, getting a new dog, need to get rid of the old dog...and on and on. If the dog is going to be made miserable in a shelter for the rest of his life, sure, a dog, cleanly executed is probably a kindness. But why does that have to be the only two choices?
I get it that shooting a dog cleanly and quickly is no worse than a needle with an anesthetic over dose. I just don't believe that in the case of a dog that had a chance to be someone else's loved pet or sport dog, that wasn't dangerous or miserable should have had a chance at a long and happy life. The owner SHOULD have taken the time to either train the dog or found a home for the dog. That is the responsibility of pet ownership. If this person written about in the OP is not to blame, if we don't have all the facts, then no....we can not say what should have happened. Maybe the dog was a slathering, vicious man killer. But if it's the way it was portrayed, that the man had a rowdy puppy (puppies can be rowdy and he should have thought about that before acquiring the puppy) and that he was too lazy to work through the situation in some way, then I believe the actions of this a$$hole were unconscionable.
This dog could have made a wonderful dog for someone else. Taking a dog to certain shelters does not necessarily equal long, miserable stays. If it does, then yes, that's not humane. Like it was mentioned, taking the time and expense to put an add in the paper or looking for someone for whom this dog would make a good pet would be the responsible thing to do. Once you decide to get a dog, then I believe the ONLY moral thing to do is to do everything possible to make sure that dog has a nice, long, happy and healthy life, even if you don't want to keep it yourself forever. I think dumping a dog off on someone else because it's "rowdy" is reprehensible, as do I think of so many of the other excuses we see all the time. ie: Having a baby, can't keep the dog, moving to a new house, can't keep the dog, getting a new dog, need to get rid of the old dog...and on and on. If the dog is going to be made miserable in a shelter for the rest of his life, sure, a dog, cleanly executed is probably a kindness. But why does that have to be the only two choices?
I get it that shooting a dog cleanly and quickly is no worse than a needle with an anesthetic over dose. I just don't believe that in the case of a dog that had a chance to be someone else's loved pet or sport dog, that wasn't dangerous or miserable should have had a chance at a long and happy life. The owner SHOULD have taken the time to either train the dog or found a home for the dog. That is the responsibility of pet ownership. If this person written about in the OP is not to blame, if we don't have all the facts, then no....we can not say what should have happened. Maybe the dog was a slathering, vicious man killer. But if it's the way it was portrayed, that the man had a rowdy puppy (puppies can be rowdy and he should have thought about that before acquiring the puppy) and that he was too lazy to work through the situation in some way, then I believe the actions of this a$$hole were unconscionable.
(((hugs))) My Dad had to shoot his dog Emmy after someone ran her over last year. It was late at night and there is no e-vet where they live - so it was let her suffer for hours or kill her humanely. I know he made the right choice but I also know that it weighs on him.
I know he made the right choice but I also know that it weighs on him.
But see, we don't have a right to do with our dogs whatever we want. Most states have animal cruelty laws (even though they aren't always enforced). So you don't have a right to beat or starve or abuse or neglect your dog. You don't have a right to let it run loose in places with leash/dog running at large laws. And a lot of places are adopting dangerous dog legislation (not referring to BSL but legislation targeting behavior instead of breed) which means you don't have a right to let your vicious dog maul people left and right. I suppose we have a right to do with our dogs what we want *to a point*.
This whole debate about human and animal rights can be tricky. Although I think most people can agree that we need laws on the books making animal cruelty a crime, because there are sick, disgusting people out there who do atrocious things who need to be punished; but sometimes "cruelty" can be subjective. Some people think crating is cruel, others understand it is a valuable tool if used correctly. Some people think chaining/tethering is cruel, etc. Part of the problem with animal cruelty laws is this subjectivity. A lot of the laws have loosely defined terms and leave a lot to individual interpretation. IMO if we just had well-written cruelty laws on the books that were strictly enforced, that would be enough. We don't need MSN, BSL, laws restricting the use of tools, or laws regulating food/exercise/number of pets/etc.
While I don't think it should be illegal to shoot your dog, because I don't think making it illegal really does anything to stop it anyway, it seems to me that if you can just take your dog out back and shoot it just because you don't want it anymore, that shows a complete lack of respect for the animal's life (I believe all life should be respected, even that of our food animals), and it shows how little you really value that life (not saying that for the man described in the OP it wasn't hard for him, we don't know if it was or not). How sad is it though, that so many of you seem to think the only options for unwanted dogs is death of one type or another?
I don't have much to add to this that hasn't already been said. I live in what a lot of people consider the 'south'.
I have friends who have shot their dog. I personally can't do that. But when they did it wasn't a 'whelp Daisy's been a good dog but she's a pain now lets take 'er out back and shoot 'er'. They were all upset about it and it was a pretty personal thing. We may live in the country and we have some weird 'ranch' ways. But most of the time it isn't an 'inconvenience' thing like it's portrayed. Theres a lot of respect in killing any animal be it a pet whose time it is or livestock raised as a pet but was time for slaughter than we're given credit for.
I have friends who have shot their dog. I personally can't do that. But when they did it wasn't a 'whelp Daisy's been a good dog but she's a pain now lets take 'er out back and shoot 'er'. They were all upset about it and it was a pretty personal thing. We may live in the country and we have some weird 'ranch' ways. But most of the time it isn't an 'inconvenience' thing like it's portrayed. Theres a lot of respect in killing any animal be it a pet whose time it is or livestock raised as a pet but was time for slaughter than we're given credit for.
A lot of people have been drawing that distinction. There are people in the South who love their dog, and shoot them out of responsibility or mercy. And there are people in the South who shoot their dog because they don't want to deal with it. Heck, sometimes they are the same people, just different dogs. There are all kinds of people in the South, just like there are all kinds of people everywhere.
(((hugs))) My Dad had to shoot his dog Emmy after someone ran her over last year. It was late at night and there is no e-vet where they live - so it was let her suffer for hours or kill her humanely. I know he made the right choice but I also know that it weighs on him.
I know he made the right choice but I also know that it weighs on him.
I really struggled with losing Maddy, and that particular part still haunts me, mostly that I had to leave her as I couldn't be there when she was shot. I hope she understood, it was the kindest thing for her. She would have had to lie there for 2 hours before the vet could come.
I'm going off what the OP wrote...taking her word for it. Of course, we don't have first hand information or facts. Is it true the man is letting multiple cats breed out of control? If so, then that is even more an indication to me that the story could be legit. Theoretically, if what she wrote is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then in that case, I think it's awful and disgusting that the dog was shot and killed. It really doesn't matter if I have all the facts because in my post here, I'm going to go on the theory or the premise that this kind of thing is done, even if it's not this particular person.
This dog could have made a wonderful dog for someone else. Taking a dog to certain shelters does not necessarily equal long, miserable stays. If it does, then yes, that's not humane. Like it was mentioned, taking the time and expense to put an add in the paper or looking for someone for whom this dog would make a good pet would be the responsible thing to do. Once you decide to get a dog, then I believe the ONLY moral thing to do is to do everything possible to make sure that dog has a nice, long, happy and healthy life, even if you don't want to keep it yourself forever. I think dumping a dog off on someone else because it's "rowdy" is reprehensible, as do I think of so many of the other excuses we see all the time. ie: Having a baby, can't keep the dog, moving to a new house, can't keep the dog, getting a new dog, need to get rid of the old dog...and on and on. If the dog is going to be made miserable in a shelter for the rest of his life, sure, a dog, cleanly executed is probably a kindness. But why does that have to be the only two choices?
I get it that shooting a dog cleanly and quickly is no worse than a needle with an anesthetic over dose. I just don't believe that in the case of a dog that had a chance to be someone else's loved pet or sport dog, that wasn't dangerous or miserable should have had a chance at a long and happy life. The owner SHOULD have taken the time to either train the dog or found a home for the dog. That is the responsibility of pet ownership. If this person written about in the OP is not to blame, if we don't have all the facts, then no....we can not say what should have happened. Maybe the dog was a slathering, vicious man killer. But if it's the way it was portrayed, that the man had a rowdy puppy (puppies can be rowdy and he should have thought about that before acquiring the puppy) and that he was too lazy to work through the situation in some way, then I believe the actions of this a$$hole were unconscionable.
This dog could have made a wonderful dog for someone else. Taking a dog to certain shelters does not necessarily equal long, miserable stays. If it does, then yes, that's not humane. Like it was mentioned, taking the time and expense to put an add in the paper or looking for someone for whom this dog would make a good pet would be the responsible thing to do. Once you decide to get a dog, then I believe the ONLY moral thing to do is to do everything possible to make sure that dog has a nice, long, happy and healthy life, even if you don't want to keep it yourself forever. I think dumping a dog off on someone else because it's "rowdy" is reprehensible, as do I think of so many of the other excuses we see all the time. ie: Having a baby, can't keep the dog, moving to a new house, can't keep the dog, getting a new dog, need to get rid of the old dog...and on and on. If the dog is going to be made miserable in a shelter for the rest of his life, sure, a dog, cleanly executed is probably a kindness. But why does that have to be the only two choices?
I get it that shooting a dog cleanly and quickly is no worse than a needle with an anesthetic over dose. I just don't believe that in the case of a dog that had a chance to be someone else's loved pet or sport dog, that wasn't dangerous or miserable should have had a chance at a long and happy life. The owner SHOULD have taken the time to either train the dog or found a home for the dog. That is the responsibility of pet ownership. If this person written about in the OP is not to blame, if we don't have all the facts, then no....we can not say what should have happened. Maybe the dog was a slathering, vicious man killer. But if it's the way it was portrayed, that the man had a rowdy puppy (puppies can be rowdy and he should have thought about that before acquiring the puppy) and that he was too lazy to work through the situation in some way, then I believe the actions of this a$$hole were unconscionable.
All the animals that we brought there, we kept. And if on the rare occasion, we decided the animal was to much for us or we didn't have time anymore for it, we found it a home. We'd place an ad in the paper, or talk to friends, or find a rescue. But I'd be DAMNED if we ever even CONSIDERED the thought of shooting a perfectly healthy animal that we chose willingly to be responsible for, simply because it was growing to be a burden. Would we have shot a dog that was overly man aggressive or had other severe behavioral problems that were preventing it and others around it to live a happy life? Most likely. But considering we're talking about an ACD here, and owning one myself and knowing the breed well, I'm willing to bet there was nothing wrong with this dog aside from it having the misfortune of having a lazy, irresponsible dick for an owner.
I don't buy into the whole "his dog, he can do whatever he wants to it" BS. What the hell kind of values does THAT suggest? If that's the case, then people also have the right to starve, neglect, and horribly abuse their animals as well. This isn't a "HURRHURR YEW CITY FOLKS!!" thing, this is a have a little respect for life thing.
Last edited:
we're not talking about values, we're talking about rights as a pet owner. To put a bullet in a pet and end things quickly is not even close to starving, neglecting, abusing or torturing animals in any sense of the word.
When people want to be rid of a dog, they want to be rid of it and people all over give it up to shelters to pass on their responsibility to someone else. Now that dog will sit in a shelter till it's adopted or killed by them.
Obviously the best scenerio is for someone to find a home where this dog will be a good fit, but seriously, now often does that happen? More often than not, it's let go to fend for itself or taken to a shelter. I have no problem with someone that take it upon themselves to do what they're going to do rather than pass it off to someone else. We have 6 animals at our house, we can't save them all, and right now my responsibility is to those 6. When one of them is gone, we'll choose from the millions of others out there and take care of that one. There isn't going to be a shortage because someone decided to end things themselves rather than drop it off at the shelter.
When people want to be rid of a dog, they want to be rid of it and people all over give it up to shelters to pass on their responsibility to someone else. Now that dog will sit in a shelter till it's adopted or killed by them.
Obviously the best scenerio is for someone to find a home where this dog will be a good fit, but seriously, now often does that happen? More often than not, it's let go to fend for itself or taken to a shelter. I have no problem with someone that take it upon themselves to do what they're going to do rather than pass it off to someone else. We have 6 animals at our house, we can't save them all, and right now my responsibility is to those 6. When one of them is gone, we'll choose from the millions of others out there and take care of that one. There isn't going to be a shortage because someone decided to end things themselves rather than drop it off at the shelter.
i'm not arguing the merits of what type of pet owner anybody is. I'd say anytime anybody gets rid of a perfectly fine dog for whatever reason they have, whether it be because they bark, have too much energy, they had a baby, they moved, they (insert any other million excuses) pretty much puts them all in the same category. Dumping a dog at a shelter doesn't make a person a better owner than someone that shoots their dog.
Yes and no. I'm apart of a LOT of various rescue groups on Facebook where shelters will work with rescues to try and get their dogs out of there and in a safe haven until a home is found. And there's quite a few shelters these days that actually take very good care of their dogs and cats. There's a lot of bad shelters out there, yes, but there's also a lot of good ones where people actually give a ****. Atleast there, they have a chance at finding a home as opposed to having their fate sealed by a bullet.
There is another part to this debate that I don't think most people know about.
If you live in a rural area, it's quite possible that there IS no shelter option....not even if you're willing to drive to one. It's a sad reality that many shelters simply do not accept animals that come from outside their "service area". I know quite a few people from remote rural areas who have faced that difficulty. It doesn't matter that you're willing to drive your dog 80 miles to the shelter: if you don't have a local address, they won't accept your dog.
I don't know if that was the situation in the story the OP told. But I just thought it was worth mentioning that many rural areas don't have access to the animal control services that more urban areas take as a given.
If you live in a rural area, it's quite possible that there IS no shelter option....not even if you're willing to drive to one. It's a sad reality that many shelters simply do not accept animals that come from outside their "service area". I know quite a few people from remote rural areas who have faced that difficulty. It doesn't matter that you're willing to drive your dog 80 miles to the shelter: if you don't have a local address, they won't accept your dog.
I don't know if that was the situation in the story the OP told. But I just thought it was worth mentioning that many rural areas don't have access to the animal control services that more urban areas take as a given.
I'm with sillysally, doberluv, shakou, etc. on this one.
I see nothing wrong with putting a dog out of pain with a gun if it's the most humane option (for example, Maddy's injury). It would've been cruel to make her suffer for hours when there was nothing that could be done to save her. To me, that makes sense.
For the OPs story or the other ones referenced...
I'd rather see an "unwanted" dog end up in a shelter because at least they have a CHANCE to get out and adopted. Tying a dog to a tree and putting a bullet through its head because you're too lazy to drive to a shelter? That's just horrible. Letting a dog loose in the woods to die from starvation and predators because you think it's more "humane" than at least GIVING IT A CHANCE in a shelter? Absolutely disgusting.
Being from "the country," having a "rancher's attitude," "not knowing any better" are lame excuses for ending a dog's life with a gun. It sure is convenient to not have to take an hour out of your day to take your dog to a shelter, or to spend 10 minutes drafting up a "to good home" ad on Craig's List.
If you're that quick to shoot your dog for being, well, a dog, you're obviously a crappy owner. But oh, it's more humane and more valiant to shoot your dog rather than taking it to a shelter. You're exactly what true heroes are made out of and should definitely give yourself a pat on the back for "saving" your dog from a shelter.
I lived in a town with EIGHTY PEOPLE in rural maine in 1998 (!!!), and we even had a couple of computers with access to the internet in a little copy shop "downtown." There is also such a thing as a library. Not being able to access the internet or "not knowing any better" is a sorry excuse for shooting a dog. I don't care how small your town is... there is ALWAYS a way to find a home for a young energetic dog (especially an ACD like in the OP's story).
I see nothing wrong with putting a dog out of pain with a gun if it's the most humane option (for example, Maddy's injury). It would've been cruel to make her suffer for hours when there was nothing that could be done to save her. To me, that makes sense.
For the OPs story or the other ones referenced...
I'd rather see an "unwanted" dog end up in a shelter because at least they have a CHANCE to get out and adopted. Tying a dog to a tree and putting a bullet through its head because you're too lazy to drive to a shelter? That's just horrible. Letting a dog loose in the woods to die from starvation and predators because you think it's more "humane" than at least GIVING IT A CHANCE in a shelter? Absolutely disgusting.
Being from "the country," having a "rancher's attitude," "not knowing any better" are lame excuses for ending a dog's life with a gun. It sure is convenient to not have to take an hour out of your day to take your dog to a shelter, or to spend 10 minutes drafting up a "to good home" ad on Craig's List.
If you're that quick to shoot your dog for being, well, a dog, you're obviously a crappy owner. But oh, it's more humane and more valiant to shoot your dog rather than taking it to a shelter. You're exactly what true heroes are made out of and should definitely give yourself a pat on the back for "saving" your dog from a shelter.
I lived in a town with EIGHTY PEOPLE in rural maine in 1998 (!!!), and we even had a couple of computers with access to the internet in a little copy shop "downtown." There is also such a thing as a library. Not being able to access the internet or "not knowing any better" is a sorry excuse for shooting a dog. I don't care how small your town is... there is ALWAYS a way to find a home for a young energetic dog (especially an ACD like in the OP's story).
