Of COURSE the responsibility should lie with the dog's owner (IMHO, of
course). I would imagine that most of us here on R.p.d. have a commitment
and a sincere feeling of responsibility for our pets and we do our utmost
to provide them with excellent care. Yes? I consider my dogs and cat
to be only my responsibility, and if for some awful reason the time comes
when I can't provide properly for them, it's my responsibility to either
find GOOD homes for them, or to put them humanely to death.
BUT - there are many people out there who aren't as committed to their
animals as we are. The numbers of pets in the animals shelters attest
to that, don't they? What then? These animals become the responsibility
of the taxpayer. If I am not contributing to the overpopulation of dogs
and cats, why should it be my responsibility to provide for those animals
(except by choice, through contributions to whatever shelter/organization
I like)? Yes, the former owner should have first responsibility, but after
the owner, I do believe that the person who "created" the pet in the
first place should also bear some responsibility BEFORE that animal becomes
the responsibility of someone (the taxpayer) who had nothing to do with
the existence of the pet.
In addition, there is a movement in at least Northern California to adopt
breeding bans on ALL animals unless breeders pay rather hefty yearly
breeding fees. The movement is a sincere attempt by some animal welfare
people to limit the number of pets that are winding up in shelters and,
ultimately, being put to death. If (again IMHO) breeders were taking that
"lifelong responsibility" for their animals and making sure those animals
were NOT ending up at shelters, the people who are attempting to create
the breeding bans might look somewhat more kindly on the "good" or
"responsible" breeders stop making it so tough for those breeders to
continue breeding quality dogs and cats.
with border collies Shiloh, UD and Levi (still in training...)
If we can increase people's responsibility (ANY people), then good.
(If I were a breeder -- Type One, I trust -- I'd be delighted to be
notified that one of my "kids" was abandoned, so I could go get it!)
| One advantage of a black Flat-Coated Retriever is that |
| you can easily see the hairs while you're picking them |
| out of the butter. |
| -- Pet Partners Anne Cotton, and Flattie |
| Cinderbin Neg's Molly Malone ("Molly") |
There is a man in our neighborhood who lets his dog go the the bathroom
all over the place (other people's yards, the middle of the sidewalk).
I am attempting to deal with him - he walks his dog on a long rope (20-30')
so Rambo can and does do his business whereever. I caught the man last
night as his dog was squatting in our yard and he tried to run away but
I chased him and he stopped. I told him to clean it up - of course he
didn't have the proper equipment so I got him a baggie.
He picked up the pile with his bare hands *gross* and took
it with him. During this time my SO came outisde and read him the riot
act - it's against the law, etc. My neighbors all have the same problem.
Somehow we'll have to file a complaint with the police, but the man
seems unstable - I don't want him to harm me or my dog..... Sugestions?
ANYWAY - my real question is that I heard that dogs won't go if there are
moth balls located in their favorite places to squat. Is that true?
Also, I'm affraid moth balls to be toxic to other animals, grass, etc.
My dog would not be allowed to go where I would place the moth balls,
but there could be other innocent dogs in the yard.
What would you do?
Owned by Sally, the Beautiful Bearded Collie
>One potential problem is that there are (at least) two very
>different groups of people being included in that single word
>"breeder." First, we have the really responsible breeders of
>purebred dogs, who make buyers sign contracts that any dog the
>owner cannot keep goes FIRST back to the breeder; and there is
>a hefty financial penalty for ever letting the dog get into
>the not-so-loving hands of a pet shop. Then, there is the much
>larger group of owners of female dogs (some purebred, others not)
>who just let their dogs mate at will. We may not consider these
>"breeders," but they are -- and that group will NEVER assume any
>responsibility for the dogs they create and manage to sell or
>give away, in all likelihood.
I believe that the term that has sometimes been bandied about on
this group for this class of slobbish breeder is "profiteer" as
they are more interested in the moeny aspects than the dogs.
Either by what they will make off of a litter of pups or the money
that they refuse to spend on a litter of pups.
The first group would love to have
>their pups tagged, and to be called if the dogs are abandoned;
>they would undoubtedly prefer to take the dogs back rather than
>see them badly placed or (far worse) sent to a lab for experimenta-
>tion. But the second group would never tag pups anyway, when they
>were born, so it would be impossible to identify these people.
Atta girl, Anne! Another good call from the NE USA!
>the idea that no dog could be licensed in any town or city unless
>it wore an electronic implant? How can this be enforced? I think
>breeders (the good kind) already share responsibility for their pups,
>so owners should be held accountable first, for the dogs they acquire
>and then may have to give up. (I could NEVER comprehend the mental-
>ity -- if you can call it that -- of people who just turn a dog out
>of the car on a highway or wherever, when they are "through" with it.
>Are these humans?)
The only likeness is from the taxonomy of them as homo sapiens. (where's
my dictionary? I think I got that $15 word right!) There is very little
humane about them.
>If we can increase people's responsibility (ANY people), then good.
>(If I were a breeder -- Type One, I trust -- I'd be delighted to be
>notified that one of my "kids" was abandoned, so I could go get it!)
Another atta girl for you, Anne!
My own call is that there are two big points in this argument.
The responsible people of this world will always be "stuck" with the
burden of responsibility for the irresponsible people of this world.
that's why we have car insurance, dog licenses, and prisons. I'd
love to say it ain't so but it is. I'm still holding out some
hope, however stupidly, that it won't always be that way.
Picking breeders for the lifelong responsibility of the animal is
just another example of taking the cowardly response to the situation.
Breeders are a small enough group to be targeted by this group of
what I label misinformed extremists. Why don't they hitch up their
blue jeans and take aim at the community where the greater share of the
blame lies -- slob owners? Lazy? Stupid? Cowardly? Pick a word that
suits your fancy but make sure that you recognize that breeders are no
more responsible for what treatment is given to a pup they produce
than the hospital is that allows the infant to go home with a family that
ends up abusing the little tyke. There simply are no crystal balls
that let you pick the perfect homes 100% of the time with dogs or
Gail Brookhart, Cincinnati, Ohio = ag...@yfn.ysu.edu
Toby the Airedale Terrier = My second-hand dogs are
Casey the Bouvier des Flandres = FIRST-CLASS pets!
Please don't limit that group to purebreds. Any animal that leaves
my household, that was bred here, bought or rescued and fostered leaves
with those same conditions. This has included dogs, cats and horses.
>What would you do?
Susan, I read somewhere that mothballs are poison to dogs (if they eat them)
not if they smell them. I use mothballs in my flower garden in front of my
house to keep my neighbor's two cats from using my garden to go potty. Cat
poop stinks (like rotten fish). They apparently don't like the smell of
mothballs and do their business elsewhere. However, I watch my dogs very
closely when they are out front to make sure they keep away from the
mothballs. After a while, they learned to stay away from the flower garden
even after the mothballs have long since disappeared.
I would not use mothballs to discourage other people's dogs and they just
might eat them. There is some stuff you can get at the garden supply stores
that you can spray on your plants and bushes to repel dogs. It must be
reapplied after you water as it washes off easily.
Besides, after that encounter with your husband, that man may walk his dog on
someone else's street. (He was probably very embarrassed.)
Hope I was of some assistance.
Dena (the dachshund lady) and the gang
In article <931004195...@ditto.techpubs> aqu...@ditto.Tymnet.COM (April Quist) writes:
= Of COURSE the responsibility should lie with the dog's owner (IMHO, of
= course). I would imagine that most of us here on R.p.d. have a commitment
= and a sincere feeling of responsibility for our pets and we do our utmost
= to provide them with excellent care. Yes? I consider my dogs and cat
= to be only my responsibility, and if for some awful reason the time comes
= when I can't provide properly for them, it's my responsibility to either
= find GOOD homes for them, or to put them humanely to death.
= BUT - there are many people out there who aren't as committed to their
= animals as we are. The numbers of pets in the animals shelters attest
= to that, don't they? What then? These animals become the responsibility
= of the taxpayer. If I am not contributing to the overpopulation of dogs
= and cats, why should it be my responsibility to provide for those animals
Will passing the buck back to the breeder make these people more
responsible? Or is making them accept responsibility for their own
dog more likely to do so?
I, too, am a taxpayer and I also am expected to pay for *many*
things that aren't my fault. The local dog pound is the *least* of
my worries in that respect. I would much rather pay taxes to
support the dog pound than to enforce the myriad do-nothing laws
that politicians insist on passing to make it *appear* that they
are "doing something about X" where X is the currently high-profile
thing that they seem to think somehthing needs to be done about.
The cost of operating the dog pound is peanuts compared with this
If anyone believes that the cost of operating a dog pound is a big
part of the tax bill, wait until you pay to enforce a (shall we
call it) breeder-responsibility law.
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I'm the NRA!"
Thank you, Gail!
>Susan, I read somewhere that mothballs are poison to dogs (if they eat them)
>not if they smell them.
You are correct
Mothballs have a product derived from distilling coal called NAPHTHALENE. It
is the crystal format that is used in mothballs & is toxic to "ALL" when it
is consumed. I use NAPHTHALENE FLAKES on my garden beds as it is a little
less conspicuous than mothballs.
Hope this helps
Terry....and my 2 Keeshond friends GIZMO & MYSTEE
Is it an effective deterrent, or do some dogs eat it and get sick/die?
: There is some stuff you can get at the garden supply stores
: that you can spray on your plants and bushes to repel dogs.
We have purchased two different kinds of dog/cat repellent to try and keep
the neighborhood cats from pooping all over our church landscaping plus digging
up the new plants I put in this year. Neither one seemed to have much effect.
The mothball idea interests me. How many does it take to do the job? Is there
any adverse effect on the flowers? Are your neighbor cats still healthy? In
other words, is there a chance this solution will end up killing the cats and
give us the potential for major ill will or a lawsuit?
Your concern, comments and suggestions were definitely appreciated, as well as
the many beautiful poems and verse. As part of my tribute to Mugs, I am making
a book, into which is going all of the snapshots we've taken of him, and
comments on the photos, ranging from when we first got him to the week before
he died. (Of course, I'm including the shot of Mugs in the tuxedo, when he was
best dog in our wedding (no best man, just best dog!); of Mugs in the Santa
Claus hat at Christmas; Mugs with his stuffed toys; and Mugs on the front porch
in his mirrored sunglasses and his Rude Dog athletic t-shirt!)
Your e-mail and postings are going to be part of that book.
Last Thursday, I received his ashes back, in a beautiful gray granite box,
shaped like the base of a statue. This weekend, I am having a brass plate made
to affix to the top of the box, reading:
| Mugs |
| circa 1981 - September 23, 1993 |
| Love is Honored |
thanks to aco...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu
I am writing Mugs into my will...When I die, I plan to have my body cremated as
well; I have decided that Mugs will join me. My wife Vicki (if she's alive) or
my friend Tom Cypher of Kenosha Wisconsin will take our combined ashes on the
back of a Harley, and ride from Chicago to Lake Louise, northwest of Banff in
Alberta, Canada. There, Mugs and I will take a helicopter ride above the
mountains of Lake Louise Ski Area, to be spread to the winds. (So much for the
Harley image, huh?)
I look forward to that day.
Again, thank you, everyone for caring. Your thoughts, prayers and wishes have
provided immeasurable assistance in my grieving, and have helped me to focus on
Will we get another dog? We're thinking about it; it will depend on how Lacey
(Bearfoot Legend's Lacey) comes along. So far, she is coping well, except for
the wimp (me) who plays tug of war with her! My winter project is to make a
trailer for her, so that when we go riding on our Harleys, that she can join
us. Of course she'll have goggles, a leather helmet, and the requisite leather
jacket with "Biker Bitch" airbrushed on the back. She'll also have her own
one-of-a-kind "Rest in Peace" patch for Mugs, just like the other bikers.
Life goes on, until one day, Mugs ...suddenly stops playing and looks up. The
nose twitches , the ears are up, the eyes are staring, and he suddenly runs
from the group. I have been seen, and when I and my special friend meet, I'll
take him in my arms and embrace. My face will be kissed again and again and
again, and I'll look once more into the eyes of my trusting friend.
Then, we'll cross the Rainbow Bridge together, never again to be separated.