This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Blitzen on 15 March 2013 - 12:03
Each case is different. Had the dogs not been taken in the case I referred to, they would still be dying from neglect. That's not right either, Paul.
Dogs held for evidence in cruelty cases are generally scored using the chart linked below or a comparable one.
http://www.purinaveterinarydiets.com/resources/Files/dog_chart.pdf
I can't make this link clickable.
Dogs held for evidence in cruelty cases are generally scored using the chart linked below or a comparable one.
http://www.purinaveterinarydiets.com/resources/Files/dog_chart.pdf
I can't make this link clickable.
by beetree on 15 March 2013 - 12:03
True Blitzen, there are some people out there who are sick, and don't know where the boundary is, and have the ability to just explain away the abuse. Until I guess, someone notices that there is suffering going on.
by Blitzen on 15 March 2013 - 12:03
Everything has to be an extreme in the dog world.
by Hundmutter on 15 March 2013 - 15:03
Hhmmmm... Paul's rant against the whole gamut from interfering
busybodies to environmentalists is all very well; I politically disagree
but he has the right to tell us his opinion. But is he not missing the
point about this thred ? I think Moons started it because he finds it futile
that money should be spent on patching up 'frightened' dogs that he
would probably argue should never have been bred in the first place,
given that careless creation of inferior specimens gives all dogs a bad
name. I can see what he means by that, if I have interpreted his position
correctly. (For one result, it can be downright dangerous, to trainers and
to prospective adopters).
However, the unit, and others like it, are doing far more than trying to make
craven dogs capable of passing in society; they are giving a chance to
dogs who have been 'made' nervous wrecks by circumstances and the
poor management by humans once they existed in this world. There are
huge numbers of rescued dogs involved who are considered for this sort of rehab
work. Many of them would have been fine if they had been given a normal
life. If there are people, many of them volunteers, who are willing to put the
work into getting them 'right' again, who on earth should have the power to
criticise or interfere with THEM ?
busybodies to environmentalists is all very well; I politically disagree
but he has the right to tell us his opinion. But is he not missing the
point about this thred ? I think Moons started it because he finds it futile
that money should be spent on patching up 'frightened' dogs that he
would probably argue should never have been bred in the first place,
given that careless creation of inferior specimens gives all dogs a bad
name. I can see what he means by that, if I have interpreted his position
correctly. (For one result, it can be downright dangerous, to trainers and
to prospective adopters).
However, the unit, and others like it, are doing far more than trying to make
craven dogs capable of passing in society; they are giving a chance to
dogs who have been 'made' nervous wrecks by circumstances and the
poor management by humans once they existed in this world. There are
huge numbers of rescued dogs involved who are considered for this sort of rehab
work. Many of them would have been fine if they had been given a normal
life. If there are people, many of them volunteers, who are willing to put the
work into getting them 'right' again, who on earth should have the power to
criticise or interfere with THEM ?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top