Jump to content

Dogs are sentient beings


BarbedWire
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/15/2019 at 12:19 PM, Snook said:

Instant is good, as is it not scaring any of the other animals. I would hope that everyone who kills animals this way is skilled enough to also make it instant. 

You know we really don't have to eat animals. I have been a pesco-vegetarian (not a vegan) for seven years and my health is excellent for someone in their middle to late seventies. I do eat a lot of chick peas and lentils and I drink soy milk with calcium added. I don't eat eggs but I do eat fish once a week and I have a little milk in my coffee. I really don't need meat but unfortunately my dogs do and I have to cope with that. As some early posters have said people are eating too much meat and it is shameful to see it being thrown away. I also think people eating less meat would be better for our environment as fewer grazing animals and more growing of vegetables and legumes etc would be better for the planet.

 

Sorry powerlegs we posted at the same time.

Edited by FootprintsinSand
I changed vegetarian to pesco-vegetarian which more accurately describes my diet. More information can be found here https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pescatarian-diet#section2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an omnivore... and mindful of waste... I eat leftovers, and always ask for a doggy bag if out and the meal has been too big to eat in one sitting. Think of it as a free lunch... lol!

 

I don't produce much waste for my bins either... it's not uncommon for me to take a month to fill my red bin enough to warrant putting it out for pickup.

 

My job requires me to be mindful of all relevant laws, regulations, and codes of practice relating to the animals in my care... and I am tasked with maintaining best practice at all times for them.

 

My personal pet dogs really don't fancy being taken out for walks, or on leads full stop really... so we have playtime in the yard for their exercise requirements instead. They do like going for car rides, so sometimes for a treat, they get a ride for 10 mins or so, then they race back inside and ensconce themselves on their fave pieces of furniture and dream happy dog dreams... hehe!

 

I'm not a fan of blanket rules/regulations enforcing some namby-pamby idea that all animals of a certain type will benefit from the same regimes/treatment. Apart from the 5 freedoms, most other things should be based on individual animal needs/requirements IMHO.

 

T.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/05/2019 at 9:56 AM, Snook said:

Good cherry picking of a few words without their context. I was talking about animals that are used for food, not our pets. You can't euthanise cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc with the drugs we use to humanely euthanise our pets, if people are going to eat them. I'm not aware of any humane method of killing animals that people are going to eat and if that's bullshit, please let me know what those methods are. 

you have missed a bit, when the rspca shot Ruth downeys cattle, they "euthanised" them.

 

when the rspca chap shot the 175 Murry Grey cattle he "euthanised" them. When they shoot them they still say they "euthanised" them.  It does not necessarily mean a dose of green dream as so many assume.

 

so when the abattoir stuns and kills the animals there, they too were "euthanised" its just the sanitary word for killing them.

 

Yet we constantly hear how cruel the knackery is for shooting the horses and cattle they "euthanise" in exactly the same manner and the two rspca inspectors "euthanised" ruths and the murray gray studs cattle?

 

The big difference being, Knackery's kill them in a crate with one shot to the head, that is law..... many of Ruths were gut shot first as they ran through a 12 foot gate and finished off with up to 2 more shots..(try it some time, its incredibly hard to do a single to the head shot as they run through a gate).. If you did that you would be charged, because its illegal to do so. If you did that its not called "euthanised" it is called aggravated cruelty?

 

cant figure how to down load the photo.

 

but page 25 is him standing at the gate shooting them, the black cow is going down after he fired. oops "euthanised" her......  just scroll to the page... dont read the story. too upsetting. The writer couldn't keep himself to just the facts. so very over emotional writing.

 

https://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

 

page 26 is taken of him "finishing her off"   ooops............ I mean "euthanising" her for the second time.  So lucky cows aren't sentient isn't she?

 

 

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

on another note.

 

interesting read ankc site this morning

 

It's okay, he's friendly
23 April · 

The fall of the dog. During the Victorian era, the notion of dogs as household pets emerged. They became synonymous with family life. In the last few decades, they were burdened with the task of being a mini human trapped inside a dog's body. As such, effective tools are now viewed as cruel. Pretty much everything is cruel to dogs currently. Unless you're plying them with food, affection, toys and entertainment, they're probably abused. Slip lead? Cruel. Prong collars? Cruel. Ecollar? Cruel. Physical correction with hand? Cruel. Bonker? Cruel. Spatial pressure? Cruel. Expecting dog to obey and conform? Cruel.

I know thousands of dog owners online who are all struggling with one or more of these: reactivity, aggression, stubborn behaviour, excitement, humping, resource guarding, livestock worrying, stealing food, pulling and dragging owner on walk, digging holes, barking, escaping, nipping, fence fighting, anxiety, fear, nervousness, over excitement etc. They're usually very far from achieving resolution. I believe they will mostly never find solutions. Because the solutions they're given need lots and lots and lots of time, energy and effort. If you're employed, raising children, not in excellent health, do anything but train dogs for a living... you're not going to resolve many serious behaviour issues with one hour of training a day. Thankfully the tranquillisers, anti depressants, CBD oil and pheromone collars might subdue the dog artificially. Ultimately though, these dogs will typically be chaotic and hard to handle outdoors.

The dog used to be viewed as vermin, or useful for real life problem solving eg pest control, guarding, helping to hunt, pull carts or track scents. Slowly slowly, his status altered to domestic pet. He often lived outdoors, was chained, or lived indoors without being humanised to the level of toddler. Now, of course, as we approach the height of this destructive thinking, we see that all forms of correction are all bad. I just read some drivel in psychologytoday that tried to pass off a sham piece of student research as a genuine work. The work of an undergraduate en route to acquiring a masters degree at a low ranked 'university'. The funny little dissertation research was scaffolded by the academic comedy of Victoria Stilwell, Jean Donaldson, studies from 1908 involving... mice, and plenty of very old studies from psychology journals. Despite using heavy bias and deceit, the conclusion was paraded like the Emperor's New Clothes: Hear ye hear ye! The guardians of the dog hereby herald that saying NO to a dog or indicating error to a dog when training a new behaviour is bad. It renders the dog unable to perform anywhere near the ability of a dog who's ONLY given praise and reward. So yes, saying NO is also cruel.

Everything is cyclical in life. Nothing ever lasts. Sanity vanished and left in its place emotional hysteria and academic fraud. But the dog who is a predator, continues to struggle to understand why he's so useless, frustrated, bored, misunderstood and having to lead his owner minute by minute. Leading his owner on walks, initiating interaction, having to defend his belongings and space from his owner and others and generally take charge. It's a lot for a baby or toddler in dog fur to cope with. The fur babies are therefore becoming more and more erratic. Their fur moms are even more upset. Emotion layered over emotion.

Dog attacks in the UK have increased despite BSL. How many sheep attacks have you read about just this year alone? How many harrowing reports of children being savaged by fur babies have you read about? Heard about fur babies attacking lots of other fur babies too? Heard about the off lead fur babies constantly harassing leashed fur babies? The dog is slowly but surely returning to his much earlier status of vermin. He will once again be the scary, unpredictable and avoided figure he used to be.

Don't believe me? Visit all the dog reactivity, enrichment, training, appreciation and fan groups. The same stories over and over again. Thousands and thousands of worn out owners who can't understand why fur baby Rover is so unreasonable. Owners who are returning or rehoming their fur babies. Owners who are having them killed. Owners who live with several fur babies all living in separate rooms. Owners whose fur babies are aggressive to their human babies.

The dog was elevated to the status of fur human and is en route back to his old status as that animal you avoided.

 
 
 
  •  
    L W Sorry. I think it’s BS. I trained the Old way with a correction chain and I was very good at it. My dogs received lots of obedience titles and they looked pretty miserable doing it. I changed to clicker training and raised my dogs the same, no force, just trust and respect and clear expectations and boundaries. And guess what. My clicker trained dogs are just as obedient, have more titles and love what they do. Good trainers/owners have good dogs. Poor owners and trainers have poorly behaved dogs. Same goes for kids. You don’t need to be abusive to have trust and respect and don’t blame the methods or tools. I’m sure these people who had poorly behaved dogs existed, there was no Facebook forums for them to be on. Hell we had a dog when I grew up as a kid that bit both my siblings and the neighbor. But nobody cared back them and that’s just what dogs did.
Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/05/2019 at 10:28 AM, FootprintsinSand said:

You know we really don't have to eat animals. I have been a vegetarian (not a vegan) for seven years and my health is excellent for someone in their middle to late seventies. I do eat a lot of chick peas and lentils and I drink soy milk with calcium added. I don't eat eggs but I do eat fish once a week and I have a little milk in my coffee. I really don't need meat but unfortunately my dogs do and I have to cope with that. As some early posters have said people are eating too much meat and it is shameful to see it being thrown away. I also think people eating less meat would be better for our environment as fewer grazing animals and more growing of vegetables and legumes etc would be better for the planet.

 

Sorry powerlegs we posted at the same time.

Sorry, but you are not a vegetarian. You're eating an animal that may have been suffocated to death, crushed to death under the weight of other fish, frozen to death or otherwise caught/killed in a way that would be totally unacceptable if the animal in question was cute and furry. A fish is not a vegetable.

The way fish are harvested (or farmed, in the case of things like salmon) is horrendously inhumane, destructive and wasteful. And if you want to talk about environmental harm, commercial fishing is responsible for a considerable amount of it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snook said:

What I actually said was that you can't euthanise animals humanely with the drugs we use for our pets, if the the intention is to eat the animal. I didn't specify that drugs are the only means of euthanasia. Euthanasia is about ending the suffering of sick or old animals (including humans), not about a specific method. Killing healthy animals for food is not euthanasia. 

 

As for your efforts to drag the RSPCA in to every single discussion on this forum, I don't care who's pulling the trigger, what you described is inhumane and cruel. And we really don't need photos of it if you're still trying to add them. 

do not intend to. they can look at them if want to on the link and if they say its euthanasia then why should I not quote them? They are the experts remember. They are the ones our politicians are asking how to draft legislation.

 

seems the badge makes all the difference.

Perhaps instead of hiring slaughter people at abbotiors they should be hiring special constables and then not only RSPCA approved but also euthanised . the demonstrators wouldn't have a leg to stand on then and no more shut downs surely?

 

none of the animals shot were aged or sick, nor intended to be eaten. as for the drugs they only look a peaceful end because among the mix is the key ingredient that does the peaceful look.. totally paralyses all the muscles so no tremors to be seen.

 

leave that out, they are dead just as swiftly my vet assured me. but he was short that one ingredient that day.

 

the difference was heartbreaking for me no matter how much he assured me she really was dead and no longer suffering. she twitched and her body struggled to breathe for what seemed like forever, still have nighmares.. its all in the presentation 

 

He assured me continually, she never suffered and was gone. 

Edited by asal
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Snook said:

I'm aware that the euthanasia drugs don't always result in a peaceful death and I intend to have my dog sedated by the vet before he's given those drugs, when the time comes. I'm sorry that you experienced such a traumatic euthanasia of your dog. It would have been very distressing. 

Snook please speak to your vet in advance about sedating first. My vet says sedating can slow down the effect of the drug as the heart is slower to pump. In saying that I did have one dog sedated first as he was a greyhound and he didn't sit and was standing and the vet (locum) was worried he would move when it came time to inject the euthanising drug. He didn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Snook said:

Thank you for sharing that. Justice has had the same vet for about 10 years and I trust her knowledge and advice, so I'll certainly talk to her about it first. She's also the kind of person who would raise any concerns she had about sedating first, if I asked her to do it without prior discussion. When the time comes, I just want to make it as easy and painless for my boy as possible. I appreciate you letting me know that sedation might not be as straight forward in this particular process as I've been led to believe. 

When my old girl Minty (who was 13 and a half and on palliative care for a Mast Cell tumour) had to be booked in to be put to sleep at home,   (mast cell tumour burst so we only had a few days left with her) I asked my vet if she could give me some tablets to calm her down on the day, as she was a nervous dog.  I didn't want her to be anxious or stressed when the vet came to do it,  even though it was being done at home.
  She gave me two separate tablets (sorry, can't remember the name of them offhand) to be given one hour, and half an hour before the vet came out. She was maybe a tiny bit calmer, but still had to be muzzled and restrained to have her leg shaved and the cannula put in.
She went very peacefully, just drifted off to sleep it seemed, though I wish now I'd done a trial run with the drugs, because on the day they didn't seem to have much effect, but I'm thankful that it didn't have to be done at the vets, she hated going to the vets after being poked/prodded/bandaged, biopsied etc in her final months.

Edited by Animal House
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maddy said:

Sorry, but you are not a vegetarian. You're eating an animal that may have been suffocated to death, crushed to death under the weight of other fish, frozen to death or otherwise caught/killed in a way that would be totally unacceptable if the animal in question was cute and furry. A fish is not a vegetable.

The way fish are harvested (or farmed, in the case of things like salmon) is horrendously inhumane, destructive and wasteful. And if you want to talk about environmental harm, commercial fishing is responsible for a considerable amount of it.

Sorry but how do you know where the fish I eat come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Snook, you could always ask your vet if they would come out to do it when the time comes.

 

We also had to consider her age/anxiety at the vets, she had already gone through a big op 2 years earlier, it was a Spindle cell tumour, removal with clear margins, which she outlived her initial prognosis by 3 months at the time the Mast cell was discovered.
Minty's MCT was a sneaky devil, it was inside a fatty tumour, at the bottom of it actually, on her back leg, once it was biopsied it grew very quickly and the skin at the bottom of the tumour was black/dead, and that's what she knocked and it burst.  We were warned that it could and would eventually happen, and when it did, that would be basically the end, as  they wouldn't be able to stop the bleeding/oozing.  We had 3 days, which were full of joy (for her) because she got to eat anything/everything, pizza, ice cream, we played ball endlessly (her favorite thing) she had her favorite visitor come over with more food, and on the afternoon before the vet was to come out,  we took off the dreaded bandage, so she could go for a run in the park, it was lovely to see her run and do zoomies and we just dealt with the mess by putting maxi pads under and around the tumour and good old duct tape to hold them together. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/05/2019 at 8:26 PM, FootprintsinSand said:

Sorry but how do you know where the fish I eat come from?

If they come from the water, they're going to have died in a way that would not be considered humane for other animals. Simple as that.

You can get snitty about it if you want, but the fact remains that eating fish (living, breathing, feeling creatures) does not make you a vegetarian. You. Eat. Meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Maddy said:

If they come from the water, they're going to have died in a way that would not be considered humane for other animals. Simple as that.

You can get snitty about it if you want, but the fact remains that eating fish (living, breathing, feeling creatures) does not make you a vegetarian. You. Eat. Meat.

Whatever Maddy. So pedantic!! I do make an effort not to eat meat which was the point of my post and I can survive doing that but some people (I should know. Isn't that what DOL is all about?) just like to nit pick others' posts because it gives them pleasure and makes them feel superior. You know I am having a shitty time at the moment and I am actually quite depressed. I did not sleep much last night knowing that you would come back at me  Yeah I am vulnerable! Does that make you want to put your boot in even more? Yeah I hurt, I am hurting. I am depressed. My daughter is unwell. Life is shit. I am crying as I write this.

 

I had hoped this thread would discuss the plight of dogs who never go for walks and spend their lives on chains and the RSPCA says they can not do anything about it because it is legal but it has gone way off topic which I guess some threads do. 

 

Snook I hope I am not being insensitive. I do feel for you and Justice. It is a difficult time for you. Cyber hugs. I always ask my vet what he would do if it was his dog and take his advice.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2019 at 11:54 PM, Snook said:

I'm so sorry that you lost your dear Minty. :( I'm glad for you both that she went peacefully, even though the lead up to it wasn't as stress free as you were hoping for. I don't think Justice's vet does house calls so I hadn't really considered having it done here. He loves his vet but finds going to the vet clinic very stressful if there are other dogs and gets very scared during an examination (although loves the cuddles and treats before and after being examined), ever since he had to go in every second day to have the wound from a mast cell tumour syringed. He'd be much more comfortable at home but I'm not sure about having a stranger do it. The idea of trialling any sedatives beforehand is a great one, especially since Justice has had adverse reactions to some of the drugs he's trialled in the past. 

 

As an aside, I had no idea mast cell tumours could burst. Justice has one I decided not to operate on after what he went through having the first one removed, and also considering his anxiety issues and age.

Both Baylee and Dee passed at home with our wonderful vet's assistance: Baylee in the front garden where she loved to watch the world go by; and Dee in the back of the car in our driveway, getting ready to go for a drive on another big adventure. They were their favourite places and in Dee's case it lessened the anxiety of a vet visit dramatically. For our dogs and us it was the perfect way to end their pain. If it is possible to do this for Justice, I can highly recommend it Snook. :heart:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2019 at 7:18 PM, Snook said:

The poor darling. What a wonderful last few days for her. She's so lucky to have had you. :heart:

 

Justice's is on his side and there's nothing else to complicate it thankfully. It puffs up with histamine to various sizes on and off and very occasionally dumps enough histamine to make him break out in hives, which I treat with an antihistamine and he's fine again. It doesn't seem to bother him though. The vet said there was no point in doing a biopsy if I wasn't going to remove it, since there's no real question about what it is, given its behaviour. 

Thanks, we were lucky to have had her, she was just a happy girl with such a personality.

Yeah, the MCT's are nasty, Minty was on a daily dose of anti-histamines, but hers was quite advanced, I opted not to have an ultrasound or bloods to see if it had spread to other organs etc, because she wasn't going to have Chemo, so there wasn't much point putting her through more (very expensive) tests at her age either.

How old is Justice now?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/05/2019 at 12:24 PM, FootprintsinSand said:

Whatever Maddy. So pedantic!! I do make an effort not to eat meat which was the point of my post and I can survive doing that but some people (I should know. Isn't that what DOL is all about?) just like to nit pick others' posts because it gives them pleasure and makes them feel superior. You know I am having a shitty time at the moment and I am actually quite depressed. I did not sleep much last night knowing that you would come back at me  Yeah I am vulnerable! Does that make you want to put your boot in even more? Yeah I hurt, I am hurting. I am depressed. My daughter is unwell. Life is shit. I am crying as I write this.

 

I had hoped this thread would discuss the plight of dogs who never go for walks and spend their lives on chains and the RSPCA says they can not do anything about it because it is legal but it has gone way off topic which I guess some threads do. 

 

Snook I hope I am not being insensitive. I do feel for you and Justice. It is a difficult time for you. Cyber hugs. I always ask my vet what he would do if it was his dog and take his advice.

think the real danger is now this has been legislated it is not just dogs "who never go for walks and spend their lives on chains" that will be seized and the owner charged.

 

whatever made you think "the RSPCA says they can not do anything about it because it is legal"

 

have you read the thread about the ten border collies taken in S.A. ?

 

the had the textbook, big, yards, excellent condition and grooming. Dogs and yards, Clean as a pin.  But the rspca  took them anyway, because they didn't come when called by the inspector, who decided they were "mentally traumatised" 9 of the ten either already had a litter or were pregnant, one was a male I understand. The rspca had them for months, raised and sold the puppies, aside from one litter they euthanised because at two weeks they decided the puppies were "not sufficiently socialised"?  I know a number of breeders were puzzled by that as at that age their eyes are just opening and that is when a breeder begins to do what?  Socalise the puppies, they dont come to you, you go to them, let them sniff and get used to your scent and they begin to play with you.

 

but, they obviously know more than anyone else.  So many breeds are "suspicious of strangers" many have it even written in the breed standard!  But now if your dog will not go to, or interact with an rspca inspector in a friendly way your sentient does not have that right to decide no.  the sentient being can now be legally classified as "suffering mental trauma"  even sadder, now grounds for euthanising it. Because it is suffering and cannot be safely retrained or rehomed.

 

After the puppies were sold they applied for a court order to euthanise all ten and were granted , they then also asked for a court order to seize and eutheranise all the owners other dogs on the grounds they too were mentally traumatised... they lost out on that because unknown to them, the owner had realised the danger the other dogs were in and by all the press and media released by the rescue groups. they were given to rescues who successfully rehomed all the dogs the court had passed the seize and euthanasia application.

 

far as I know the law you put up is the first,  dont know of it being law in S.A. yet they dogs were taken because they were "mentally suffering"

 

sure sounds like the sentinent card being played.

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, asal said:

think the real danger is now this has been legislated it is not just dogs "who never go for walks and spend their lives on chains" that will be seized and the owner charged.

 

whatever made you think "the RSPCA says they can not do anything about it because it is legal"

 

have you read the thread about the ten border collies taken in S.A. ?

 

the had the textbook, big, yards, excellent condition and grooming. Dogs and yards, Clean as a pin.  But the rspca  took them anyway, because they didn't come when called by the inspector, who decided they were "mentally traumatised" 9 of the ten either already had a litter or were pregnant, one was a male I understand. The rspca had them for months, raised and sold the puppies, aside from one litter they euthanised because at two weeks they decided the puppies were "not sufficiently socialised"?  I know a number of breeders were puzzled by that as at that age their eyes are just opening and that is when a breeder begins to do what?  Socalise the puppies, they dont come to you, you go to them, let them sniff and get used to your scent and they begin to play with you.

 

but, they obviously know more than anyone else.  So many breeds are "suspicious of strangers" many have it even written in the breed standard!  But now if your dog will not go to, or interact with an rspca inspector in a friendly way your sentient does not have that right to decide no.  the sentient being can now be legally classified as "suffering mental trauma"  even sadder, now grounds for euthanising it. Because it is suffering and cannot be safely retrained or rehomed.

 

After the puppies were sold they applied for a court order to euthanise all ten and were granted , they then also asked for a court order to seize and eutheranise all the owners other dogs on the grounds they too were mentally traumatised... they lost out on that because unknown to them, the owner had realised the danger the other dogs were in and by all the press and media released by the rescue groups. they were given to rescues who successfully rehomed all the dogs the court had passed the seize and euthanasia application.

 

far as I know the law you put up is the first,  dont know of it being law in S.A. yet they dogs were taken because they were "mentally suffering"

 

sure sounds like the sentinent card being played.

I understand your concerns. It is a grey area isn't it? This article is about Canberra. For what it is worth the member of our local assembly photographed in the article is my local member and it is the first time I have heard anything from him. Maybe he is becoming concerned about re-election. I don't think it is being discussed anywhere else in Australia.

 

I once had what for me was a shocking experience. I was sitting in my lounge with my dog (a beautiful male boxer called William) watching television when there was a knock at the door. It was the local ranger. He was responding to a report that my dog had just attacked a child. I felt sick deep down in the pit of my stomach and said that my dog had not been out so it couldn't be. He asked to see my dog and then said that it wasn't him and left. No apology or anything. I have often re-visited this incident and wondered what I could have done if he had said my dog had done it and had removed him. I know I would have resisted this, violently if necessary. He was a brindle boxer and some ignorant people are suspicious of all brindle dogs as being aggressive and obviously one of my neighbours had accused my dog of being the culprit.

 

The point of this is that I sort of understand your angst but of course your experience with the RSPCA is much more serious. I am so sorry for you. It must be so painful. Take care and be kind to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that would have been terrible.

Knowing quite a few boxers from friends, theirs are the ever Peter Pan puppies, never grow up, well mentally anyway. 

 

mine actually should never have been serious. like your boy my dog was innocent, in his case of having any health issues, the serious part was not even his own vet was believed, just stole him and when the inspectors first assumption of mange (mind you he had NO symptoms of mange, no bare or thickened skin, just short coat along the top of his tail and back) when the tests for scarptopic and demadectic mange were clear, still kept him and tested him for 13 days to find something, anything chargable.

 

so glad they didn't take him and was honest enough to at least say no its not him and left.

 

If he hadn't, you have no avenue of appeal except through the courts and that can take years and every penny you can scrape up. The really bad part is now its law they can euthanise the dog on the gounds that to be locked up for so long will cause suffering, (in victoria the CEO has publicly stated their present facilities are unsuitable for long term stay, (they are a fraction of the size of the kennels the Border Collies were taken from in S.A, and then locked in equally tiny and dark kennels for over 4 months?)  while the court process grinds through now.

 

that is all I have ever asked be implemented, despite the attacks of hating them, mentally unstable etc.

 

We are so lucky our law makers have not decided yet to declare the human race legally sentient.

Edited by asal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...