Busterdog

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it? All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down.

As requested: Treating dogs like humans is anthropmorphising, not humane. I eat animals but I'm not a cannibal. By your logic, I should be. As I can own an animal I should also own human slaves? Ah, nope. Yes, I do have a different standard of treatment for humans and animals. Dogs are not humans. Therefore direct comparison between the species doesn't fly with me. Comparing euthanasia of severely disabled pups with Nazi policies (as has already happened in this thread) is crap. Pure and simple. These little animals will live or die, will only have the care that their owners dictate. No welfare system, no assistance with medical expenses, no checks and balances, no respite care. No thanks. Can't remember mentioning Nazis, and that is a classic and simplistic attempt at a straw man argument. I'm happy to explain that to you if you need. You further exemplify your welfare mentality, that you won't do anything unless you get welfare to do it. Personally I admire people who are willing to do things for themselves, without expecting others to pay for them. I admire someone who is willing to care for a disabled dog, as opposed to those who find it easier to just knock them on the head because no-one else is willing to pay. All dogs only have the care that their owners provide/dictate. There is an obvious logical conclusion to that argument, and I suspect you don't want to euthanise all dogs. The point of agreement here is that you would euthanize the dogs in question because either you think their quality of life would be poor or it is too much effort to look after them. Either way you are validating the original statement which offended you.

So you would only keep disabled humans alive because they or their carers get welfare? It's not about welfare, it's about quality of life. PF said that they are offended at being judged for doing something other than keep a dog that is not suitable for rehoming. So you can't rehome it, you are not keeping it, what is the only alternative? How dare someone suggest you would do exactly what you said you would do. PF, I bet you didn't even realise you said that, did you? You and Fifi both said you wouldn't keep disabled dogs, Fifi because she/he can't get welfare for them, PF because they can't be rehomed. I am offended at your holier than thou attitude, when you are the ones who want to euthanize the dogs because you don't want to put the effort in to keep them, and then get offended when someone calls you out.

True. I have Kelpies/Kelpie-ish dogs so leglessness would not play out well for them :p I guess I was just trying to ascertain the reason for the above posters' feelings of affront. Perhaps they were under the misapprehension that 'many' was being used as the noun for 'majority'. For clarification 'many' only means 'the majority' when you say: "the many" e.g. music for the many As used above, many just means "a large number of people". Nowhere near a majority or all and hardly offensive really unless you're determined to be snotty in which case, go nuts ... I also found The Ark's comment offensive. If I had a legless puppy or one suffering from cerebral palsy I would also opt for euthanasia, but for humane reasons not because it was unsuitable for showing or breeding. There are usually only a few puppies in a litter that are suitable for showing or breeding anyway and I certainly don't pts those that don't make the grade. However I wouldn't hesitate to pts any puppy that was born deformed or carrying a genetic disorder that prevented it from leading a normal life. Let's get this straight. You are offended because of a statement that most people would euthanise these dogs, and you go on to say that you would euthanise these dogs. I can only surmise that you took offense at the imp,ovation that they would be euthanised on the basis that they would not be show dogs or breeding potential. Your excuse for euthanasia is their quality of life. Come again? You have just written off most of the humans in the paraolympics, particularly those with cerebral palsy. Ask them about their quality of life, and translate their answers to the dogs.

I'm sorry, I find that statement offensive, Maybe those 'many breeders' might have put her down from an ethical, humane point of view, based on her expected quality of life, NOT because she wasn't potential ribbon winning or pumping out puppies as their motive. :p fifi edited for spelling and to bold the text because I'm peed off. What would you have done Fifi?

I suggest everyone read this thread again, and wherever mention is made of dogs, substitute in your mind discussion of humans. Everyone here would say that they believe in HUMANE treatment of dogs. That means treat them as we would a human (before you post a comeback to that statement please post your alternative definition), so those who want to euthanise these dogs must be in favor of doing the same to disabled humans. I don't think so. Your other alternative is that you have a different set of moral and ethical standards for dogs versus humans, or humans vs any other animals. Let's hear it.

There are some things that should be and are outside the restriction of trade laws. If we had open slather free trade on everything, we would have free trade on slaves. We obviously don't and shouldn't have that. The ethical question becomes should we have free trade on all animals? I think not, some will disagree, but restriction of trade is a weak argument in trade of animals.

I'm a newbie here, but could someone explain to me how the RSPCA could possibly shut down a reputable ethical breeder? They can only take action on the basis of animal cruelty, they have no other legal avenues, and if you are an ethical, responsible breeder, you surely have nothing to fear? If the RSPCA has shown an interst in your operation, they could only do so if they had reason to do so???? What would that be?

The other aspect that i like about Ceasaer, is that he teaches people animal, dog, name. That the dog IS NOT a furry person & to stop treating them like that. Very similar to Dr Phil too, in the respect of STOP feeling sorry for your dog (if it has been abuse etc) & to move on, yes what happened in the past is horrible but it was in the past now move forward to the present/future. Actually I think it is animal/species/breed/name that he teaches.

Hard to tell who are the stupid people though. The mother might be feral but the kid might be the next Beethoven. And what about the feral people who have a yard full of uncontrolled dogs of whatever breed who attack your child, you have just exemempted them too. We let stupid people do all sorts of things, in fact we make them vote !!!!!!! Agree, but tough to do.