If dogs in general are as expensive to take care of as some insist, then the question must be raised, "Are many dogs better off sitting in pounds and shelters waiting to be euthanized instead going to tight-budget middle class homes?"
Many people that own dogs are found to be rather obsessive, and their voices get heard most when it comes to dog ownership.Alot of policies and laws have been changed to fit these obsessive dog owners request. Many of these owners don't realize that they are actually hurting more dogs than they are helping. Many people love dogs though it has to be understood that dogs are just animals. You cannot put the same value of life on a dog as you would a human life. Human life is immensely more valuable than an animals. An illustration to reveal this goes along these lines," In a burning house a dog and man are trapped.You only have enough time to save one. Who do you save? If you were rationally sane you would choose to save the man."
2007-09-08 05:21:52 · 13 answers · asked by Red Rage 1 in Pets ➔ Dogs
Is it better for a dog to be in a shelter or with a middle income family? Of course it's better off with the family. However, I think when people get dogs and the dog has a medical condition, too many people hide behind their tight finances.
Dogs are entitled to medical care and if you cannot afford at least the most basic medical care or are not willing to do what is needed to provide medical care, then you should not own a dog.
I am not rich by any means, but I realize that by bringing animals into my home I am agreeing to provide them with their basic needs. I have sold my wedding ring in the past during a time when money was tight and my dog required surgery. I could have said I couldn't afford it, but the fact is, if I was not willing to sell something, then I have no right owning the dog. If there is a huge emergency and you really cannot afford it, then it is time to either find a rescue or other organization to help you, get a second job, or have the decency to at least put the dog down rather than watch it suffer "hoping" it will get better.
Getting a dog is a big responsibility and if people are not ready to own up to it financially, emotionally, etc., then they should not have a dog.
I know that human life comes before animal life, but life is still life even if it is a dog, and we as the more intelligent being is responsible to provide care for our animals. Having a dog is a privilege. We don't HAVE to have a dog, we choose to have a dog, and in choosing to have a dog we choose to provide them with all their needs.
You say that these laws are hurting dogs rather than helping them, well I strongly disagree. I have worked in rescue a long time and I have seen what people are capable of. I would much rather have a dog put to sleep rather than have them in a neglectful situation. Dogs feel pain, they get depressed, lonely, cold, hurt, etc., and it is better to be euthanized than to be in a situation where they are not properly cared for.
I understand your thinking, but you are not factoring in that many people are capable of completely neglecting a dog to the point of out right abuse.
Is is better for a dog to be in shelter than a GOOD home? Absolutely not! But it is better off in a shelter than a neglectful home and these laws help weed out the bad situations.
2007-09-08 05:40:23 · answer #1 · answered by Shanna 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Dogs are better off in homes where they have a chance. So what if somebody isn't rich? That doesn't mean they can't own a dog. People who have less money usually get small dogs because they are cheaper to own all around, so maybe if you are worried about money then get a small dog.
Besides, you do not get a good dog by investing money in it. You get a good dog by investing TIME. Just because some people have loads of money does not mean they will make good dog parents. If they have no time to spend with the dog, then the poor thing will be miserable and might as well be dead.
As far as I'm concerned, a person who is poor but has lots of time to spend with their pet is a far better owner than a rich person with no time to spend with their dog.
2007-09-08 05:37:23 · answer #2 · answered by Velvet 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you meant me, if not excuse my ignorance.
Just any home isn't good enough, a dog would be better off being lonely in a cage than being abused by children and not being given medical care. Ofcorse you do not have to be rich to own a dog, you need to be able to provide for it wether you do that earning ££££££££s or getting benefits.
Unfortunately, I know so many people who refuse to take their dogs to the vets or get them behavioral help because they'd rather buy something for themselfs.
In England you can get fined for not getting your pets medical help, which in my eyes is a brilliant law. Atleast some people who would have otherwise ignored their dogs limp will take them to the vets. The bad thing is there are probably a number of people who isolate their dogs because they're too scared they'll get reported.
So, sorry if you are a genuine dog lover who would sacrafice luxuries if your dog needs it. Sadly not many people are.
2007-09-08 05:51:39 · answer #3 · answered by Goldengirl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with you on many levels, the most important one being, how can you justify valuing life in different grades? Smacks of discrimination. Should we not value all life?
Laws to protect animals are placed there because of the cruelty possible in our human natures. Sometimes I wonder if we are as great as we think we are, after I have seen or dealt with an animal abuse case.
We should be more humble about this whole thing and realise that it is not only our RESPONSIBILITY to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but our moral duty as well.
If you start by valuing life in grades, where does it stop?
I am not an obsessive dog owner, but if someone is not giving their dog the bare necessities of care, they certainly deserve to pay for it in my book.
And didn't your parents teach you that if you didn't have the money, don't buy it? If you can't afford to abide by the laws governing dog ownership, maybe you should buy fish.
2007-09-08 06:06:26 · answer #4 · answered by anne b 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aww did people tell you that having a dog can cost alot of money and is a big responsibility- sorry if that hurt your poor little feelings.
I am a student- I have $0 income and I still manage to support my dog. My parents and credit cards help me with emmergencies and I should start working in several months (I am a Canadian student in the US so I can't legally work while in school).
My dog is 100% better with me then he was in the shelter. He gets food, water, love, walks. He may not get 10 toys (he has 2) or 20 million treats- but he seems happy here.
2007-09-08 05:30:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
i think as long as you can afford a dog both fiancially and have enough time for a dog and are going to treat him right then there is no problem with dog ownership. people stress over dogs to let others know it is a serious commitement. i have often asked the same question you are asking . since so many of my local shelters are so strict about where the dog goes. i think wouldnt it be better for a dog to got to a home with no fenced in backyard (requirement for adopting at my local shelter)then sitting in a cage at a pound sad and lonely. i think people need to loosen up a little but we are in a society that values dogs.
2007-09-08 05:34:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends.. Just having a home isn't the best thing.. A GOOD home, is the best deal.. I think some dogs are better euthanized than to be put into a crappy home. There are alot of people out there that can't take care of themselves.. Have no clue about how to get thru their daily lives.. They shouldn't have a dog.. A dog in their case would be better put to sleep than to suffer from lack of quality care...
I would have to save the dog.. I have a very low opinion of people generally.. People chose to be the way they are. Dogs are a product of people.. You can't blame the dog in most cases how they act and react.. People refuse to take the blame for how they act and react.. I would save the dog and let the man figure his way out of his dilemma himself.
2007-09-08 05:37:54 · answer #7 · answered by DP 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hello... of course they are better off in a shelter die of starvation of die in a humane way??Our local shelter has a no-kill policy they only kill dogs if they have a fatal illness that cannot be treated or if it is better off that they be dead. We have adopted a couple of cats from the shelter and they are wonderful. Just think about that next time you leave a dog to "find a home" on the street.
2007-09-10 13:45:19 · answer #8 · answered by twixerella 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who or what do you keep quoting in your question? And what laws that have recently been made by "obsessive owners" hurt dogs more than they help? Of course dogs are just animals.... are you so closed minded and lacking emotion and heart that you find it impossible to feel love or affection for another living creature?
2007-09-08 05:40:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is better for them to be in a lovin home but dogs arent cheap but places you can save are food shelter dont feed top qualtiy you dont have to ether get a dog from the shelter and it will be up to date on shots and prolly spayed so you will save there
2007-09-08 05:29:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋